The Instigator
TheWORDisLIFE
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
salam.morcos
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 76242
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

Many Christians like to hit me with John 3:16, however, Christians don't understand what John 3:16 is really talking about. John 3:16 is talking about the world of Israel, as quoted from the Old Covenant.

Rules of debate:

1. Challenger MUST be a Christian or Catholic.

2. Challenger MUST use the Bible ONLY as evidence.

3. Challenger CANNOT change the topic of the talking point.

4. Challenger CANNOT change rules of debate.

*If any of the above rules are disobeyed, if any rules at all are violated, it will result in CON automatically losing this debate.

Rules for Arguments:

R1 - Acceptance and agreement only, of the five statues listed above.

R2 - Arguments/Refutes

R3 - Arguments/Refutes

R4 - Arguments/Refutes

R5 - Concluding statements


If you have any questions pertaining to the topic of the debate, please ask them in the comment section before accepting this debate.

*NOTE: I will not change the rules of the debate nor will I make any alterations to the discussion of this debate.
salam.morcos

Con

I accept. I am a Christian and I will adhere to the rules. I've never had a Christian to Christian debate before.

Good luck and I look forward for an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

Thank you CON for accepting; good luck to you CON. I will be using the KJV 1611 w/Apocrypha included.

Using the Bible, I will prove that The Most High God only loves Israel and the world in John 3:16 is talking about Israel. I would like everyone to also keep in mind that Christ quoted the Old Covenant when He came on the scene. Everything Christ and His Apostles quoted was from the Old Testament, so the Israelites were under the Old Covenant because the NC wasn’t written when Christ walked the earth.

1 Peter 2:9 But yee are a chosen generation, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that yee should shewe forth the praises of him, who hath called you out of darknes into his marueilous light:

So this is not talking about everyone. Peter was telling a certain group of people that they are a holy nation, a peculiar people. Now let’s find out, with precepts, who this holy, peculiar people are.

Exodus 19:3;5-6

[3] And Moses went vp vnto God: and the Lord called vnto him out of the mountaine, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Iacob, and tell the children of Israel:

[5] Now therfore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keepe my couenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure vnto me aboue all people: for all the earth is mine.

[6] And ye shall be vnto me a kingdome of Priestes, and an holy nation. These are the wordes which thou shalt speake vnto the children of Israel.

Peter quoted Exodus 19:5-6. Exodus 19:3 is telling you who this peculiar people are; it’s Israel.

The other nations in this world became jealous and still are jealous because The Most High God chose Israel out of all the families on this earth (Amos 3:1-2), so because of their jealousy for Israel, let’s find out what the other nations did?

Psalms 83:3-5

[3] They haue taken craftie counsell against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.

The other nations took crafty counsel against The Most High GOD’s chosen people Israel because they were jealous they weren't chosen, and consulted against us (Israel) upon us (Israel) being disperesed in slavery, because we (Israel) had forgotten who we were; we lost our identity, heritage and land (in slavery). That’s why we’re referred to as the hidden ones. We, Israel, had no idea who we were because our identity was hidden from us, but we are awakening and coming back to our heritage and true nationality.

So, what else did the nations do against The Most High chosen people Israel?

[4] They haue said, Come, and let vs cut them off from being a nation: that the name of Israel may bee no more in remembrance.

[5] For they haue consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee.

Together, the nations came together on one accord, which was to cut GOD’s chosen people off from being a nation. That’s why they tell you today that everybody is God's people; Israel is done away with; God chose HIM a new people. So GOD’s true chosen people are walking around being called bywords that TMH GOD never called them, such as: African Americans, Blacks, Niggers, Negroes, Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans, Native American Indians, Dominicans, Cubans, etc… (FYI: so called “African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are the true 12 Tribes of Israel).

John 3:16For God so loued y world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall bee saued in the Lord with an euerlasting saluation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

So there is no end to Israel and “Israel shall be saved with an everlasting salvation”; John 3:16 is talking about Israel. Here’s more proof.

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of y Iewes:

So Christ was speaking to the Jews, not the “whole” world.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness: even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” To understand John 3:16 you must comprehend John 3:14. Everyone in the world wasn't in the wilderness when Moses had lifted up the serpent. GOD directed a people out of Egypt into the wilderness, so we have to identify who these people were that he led out and why Moses lifted up the serpent, then you can comprehend why Christ must be lifted up.

Numbers 21:5-9

[5] And the people spake against God and against Moses, Wherefore haue ye brought vs vp out of Egypt, to die in the wildernesse? for there is no bread, neither is there any water, and our soule loatheth this light bread.

[6] And the Lord sent fierie serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died.

Uh-oh, seems verse 6 identified the people (Israel) that were in the wilderness. Because Israel was led out of Egypt and they spoke against TMH GOD and Moses, The Most High sent poisonous snakes upon the children of Israel to kill who ever spoke against HIM and Moses.

[7] Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We haue sinned: for wee haue spoken against the Lord, and against thee: pray vnto the Lord that hee take away the serpents from vs: and Moses prayed for the people.

[8] And the Lord said vnto Moses, Make thee a fierie serpent, and set it vpon a pole: and it shall come to passe, that euery one that is bitten, when hee looketh vpon it, shall liue.

[9] And Moses made a serpent of brasse, and put it vpon a pole, and it came to passe, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when hee beheld the serpent of brasse, he liued.

John 3:16For God so loued y world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

So just as “Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness” for the children of Israel as a sacrifice for their sins so that they might have life, Christ also must be lifted up as a sacrifice so that Israel may have life since Israel broke the covenant they made with GOD. Since we (Israel) broke the covenant with our GOD, HE cut is off and scattered us among all the nations in the world.

So to bring Israel back so that their iniquities may be forgiven, Israel needed a sacrifice, which was Christ, and He had to be lifted up so that Israel could be saved.

Psalms 111:9 He sent redemption vnto his people, hee hath commanded his couenant for euer: holy and reuerend is his Name.

The Bible says TMH God sent redemption unto HIS people and in Matthew 15:24 Christ says, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. So Christ was sent by The Most High God, into this world, to save Israel HIS people, so that we may have life and not die in our iniquities. The “whosoever” in John 3:16 is Israel, so whosoever of Israel believes on Christ, will live and not die – comparable to Numbers 21:8, the children of Israel erred and for Israel to be pardoned of their transgressions, TMH GOD spoke to Moses telling him to lift up the serpent and set it on a pole so that anyone who looked upon it that had got bit, shall live. In John 3:14, that’s why it says, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:” for Jesus only came to save His people Israel, to reunite us back with TMH God; Jesus Christ was an atonement for the transgressions of Israel that’s why He had to be lifted up so that Israel could be saved.


Thank you CON, I await your response.
salam.morcos

Con

I want to thank Pro for this debate.

Pro argues that Judeo-Christian God only loved Israel, and not the world. I will present my case as follows:

1. Evidence from the New Testament

There are many examples, but I will only present a few to keep this discussion concise. The Bible verses below will show that God didn't only love the Jews as Pro claims. I will also use NIV translation of the Bible because it's easier to read, but other sources would also suffice.

a) Jesus said: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:16

Jesus often preached with parables, and the "other sheep" in the parable is referring to the non-Jews [1].

b)
"But glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:10-11

c) "There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:22-24

d) "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:28

All the verses above, and many others that I didn't cite, clearly show that God loved the rest of the world.

2. Evidence from the Old Testament

I will present cases in the Old Testament that also shows God's love to the non-Jews. But first I want to note to the reader that the Jews didn't exists prior to Abraham, as he is the father of all Jews (the first Jew) [2]. What about Adam and Noah that God loved? They weren't Jews.

a)
"And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Isaiah 56:6-7

c) You may have heard about the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale, which is a symbol of Jesus' death and resurrection [3]. Jonah was sent by God to warn the wicked people of Ninevah. The people of Ninevah repented and were spared. [4]

d)
"Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Micah 2:4

I could explain each verse, but I believe that they are self explanatory. There are many other examples to show that God's love wasn't limited to the Jews as Pro claims.

3. Incompatibility with God's nature

The proposition of this debate states that "For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world". This proposition presupposes that the Judeo-Christian God exists. If He didn't exist, then He would have neither loved Israel nor the world. This debate would be pointless!

But if the Judeo-Christian God exists, and He is considered as just and righteous, then loving only the Israelites is incompatible with His nature. If God only loved the Jews, then God is no longer just… He would be outright racist! Maybe Pro is arguing that God is unjust according to the Bible? But if that's Pro's claim, then the Bible (which is the source Pro is using) clearly disagrees with Pro: "Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!" Isaiah 30:18

4. The confused Christians and Jews!

Christians and Jews for generations believed that God's love was universal. Judaism claims that "the Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not" [5]. Christians believes that God is love himself [6]. I find Pro's argument very ad hoc. Were all the Jews and Christians so confused that they didn't understand what the Bible said? While I admit that Christians have many disagreements, evident in the sheet number of Christian denominations, but most Christians believe that God's love (called agape) was universal to all humanity [7]. And if God exists, did He just leave the Christians and Jews confused for centuries?

I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the next round.

Sources

[1] http://biblehub.com...
[2] Levenson, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, p. 3 https://books.google.ca...
[3] "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40
[4] Jonah 3
[5] http://www.aish.com...
[6] 1 John 4:8
[7] http://www.britannica.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro


Thank you CON for your response. This wasn't a refutation, rather an argument but I will still refut.


[a) Jesus said: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall beone flock and one shepherd." John 10:16]


The key word in this verse is “sheep”. Who are the sheep Christ is speaking of? Are they the heathen Gentiles and the Israelite Gentiles? Are they the Israelite Gentiles? Or are they both the Southern and Northern Kingdom of Israel?


Matthew 10:6 But goe rather to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel.


Matthew 15:24 But he answered, and said, I am not sent, but vnto the lost sheepe of the house of Israel.


In order to understand John 10:16 and Matthew 10:6;15:24, you have to understand the captivities the Israelites went through. During the captivities of the Israelties, The Most High GOD scattered us among the heathen.


Leviticus 26:33 And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.


John 7:35 Then saide the Iewes among themselues, Whither will hee goe, that we shall not find him? will he goe vnto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?


Who are the dispersed? The Northern Kingdom of Israel because they followed the customs of the heathen.


The definition of "GENTILE" from the Zondervan Compact Bible Dictionary: USUALLY it means a non-Israelite people. The key word is USUALLY. So in other words there were Israelites (primarily the Northern kingdom of Israel led by Ephraim that were also called the lost sheep because we were scattered abroad. Read Deut 28:64, John 11:47-52, and James 1:1) that were called GENTILES (Read Eph 2:11 and 1 Cor 12:2). The Northern kingdom of Israel headed by Ephraim were broken that it be not a people. (Read Isa 7:8-9). Also the Northern kingdom went to straight idolatry under Jeroboam (Read 1 Kings 12:26-30 and Hos. 4:17). So Ephraim (the 10 tribes of the house of Israel) was cast off from being his people because of idolatry and sin and became known as GENTILES in the New Testament being GRAFTED back in the fold with Judah (Jews) when you read Romans 11 and Hosea 1:6-11, and Hosea 2:23, 1 Peter 2:10, and Ezek. 37:15-22 and Judah ( Jews which consists of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi) was still faithful to God. (Read Hosea 11:12) The Most High and Christ has never dealt with the HEATHEN GENTILES. (Read Psalms 147:19-20 and 2 Esdras 6:53-59).


[b) "But glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:10-11]


So again, this is talking about the Israelite Gentiles, as mentioned and explained in the above verses. Also, if you read on, the Scriptures begin to go talk about the Law and those who had the Law; the only ones who were under the Law in the Old Covenant & the new, were the Israelites.


[c) "There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:22-24]


Let’s look at v20 to see who this is speaking of.


Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deedes of the Law, there shall no flesh be iustified in his sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne.


So this verse mentions the Law (animal sacrifice Heb 10:4-9). Who was under the law of animal sacrifice in the OT? The Israelites where, so again Romans 3:22-24 is speaking of the Israelites.


[d) "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:28]


So again, if the verses before v28 in Galatians 3 are acknowledged, you all will notice that it speaks of the law again, and again, who was under the Law of animal sacrifice in the OT? The Israelites were. No other nation was under the Law of Moses in OT but Israel. Galatians 3:28 is speaking of the Israelites.


[a) "And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Isaiah 56:6-7]


Let’s examine this. V6 says “all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant”: Who was commanded to keep the Sabbath? Israel was. All the nations of people were not commanded to keep the Sabbath, so again, this is speaking about the Israelites. Also, nation is another word for tribe and these verses are referring to the 12 Tribes or Nations of Israel.


Tribe - synonyms: ethnic group, people, band, nation;


Exodus 31:13 Speake thou also vnto the children of Israel, saying, Uerely my Sabbaths ye shall keepe: for it is a signe betweene me and you, throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord, that doth sanctifie you.


[d) "Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Micah 2:4]


Salam, I think you meant Micah 4:2.


“The Law will go out from Zion,”: Again, who was the Law given to? Israel, not the heathen nations.


[If God only loved the Jews, then God is no longer just… He would be outright racist!]


The Most High GOD is racist that is why HE says in Amos 3:1-2 that HE only chose Israel out of all the families on the earth. GOD is only dealing with Israel.


Isaiah 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him lesse then nothing, and vanitie.


So the other nations are nothing to the GOD of Israel.


[Maybe Pro is arguing that God is unjust according to the Bible?]


No, I’m arguing that GOD only loves Israel and HE is just because HE is The Most High. Since HE only loves Israel, the “world” in John 3:16 is talking about Israel, as quoted from the Old Testament (Isaiah 45:17).


[But if that's Pro's claim, then the Bible (which is the source Pro is using) clearly disagrees with Pro: "Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!" Isaiah 30:18]


If the previous verses before v18 in Isaiah 30 are acknowledge, you all will notice that again, v18 is in reference to the children of Israel. The Most High GOD of Israel is righteous and just to Israel.


[Christians and Jews for generations believed that God's love was universal. Judaism claims that "the Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not" [5].]


“Christians and Jews for generations believed that God’s love was universal.”: This is what Christians and the imposters (Jews in Israel today) believed, but this is not what the Bible says.


“Christians believes that God is love himself [6].”


That’s what Christians believe, but that is not what the Bible says.


[Were all the Jews and Christians so confused that they didn't understand what the Bible said?]


Modern day Christians and the fake “Jew-ish” are confused because what they teach is contrary to what the Bible actually says.


[While I admit that Christians have many disagreements, evident in the sheet number of Christian denominations, but most Christians believe that God's love (called agape) was universal to all humanity [7].]


Again, this is what Christians believe, but it’s not what the Bible teaches.


[And if God exists, did He just leave the Christians and Jews confused for centuries?]


Modern day Christians and the fake “Jew-ish” will be confused because the Bible is only for the Israelites. The Bible was written for the Israelites, to the Israelites, by the Israelites, therefore, the Bible is the History & Law book of the Israelites.


salam.morcos

Con

Debate Objection
I want to first object to the number of verses and arguments that I have to defend. There were probably more than 30 verses that Pro used which makes it difficult for the debater to rebut the arguments. This type of argumentation is called Gish Gallop [1] and should be considered as misconduct. I also wasn't happy with Pro's use of the N word referring to black people, even though Pro used it subtly and may be without poor intentions; I still find it in very poor taste. Not to add that Pro has bolded and underlined almost the entire space. This is a disservice to the reader.

Rebuttals

Rebuttal 1:
Pro argues in 1 Peter 2:9 that the holy nation and peculiar people mentioned in the verse are Israel and the Jews, respectively. I agree with Pro that Peter was referring to Exodus 19:5-6. But in the New Testament, the definition of Jews has changed. According to the Bible: "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." (Romans 2:28:29)


Peter was talking to the Christians telling them that they are a holy nation and peculiar (meaning special) people. That's because Christians are the new Jews. As the verse that I provided shows, being a Christian is by faith (circumcision of the heart).

It's important to view these verses in a non-literal way, and consider the context of the verses. Otherwise, we'll end up circumcising the heart literally! I ask the reader to dismiss this argument.

Rebuttal 2: Pro argues in Amos 3:1-2 and Psalms 83:3-5 that other nations got jealous.

This is irrelevant. Just because the Jews were chosen, Pro must show why this necessitates that God only loved them, and no one else. Choice doesn't necessary mean love, it could be a burden. If I choose someone to carry my luggage, does that mean that I love that person, and that person alone? This is non-sequitur, and it's Pro's responsibility to show why Israel was the only loved nation. I have already shown in my second contention that this is actually not the case.

Therefore this argument is negated.

Rebuttal 3: Pro argues that John meant only the Jews in John 3:16 (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life)

Pro argues that God promised Israel everlasting salvation in Isaiah 45:17. Pro then argues that because John's verse states that "whoever believes in him shall have eternal life", then this eternal life automatically applies to Jews only! But this is non-sequitur! If God offered someone everlasting life, that doesn't mean necessarily that He can't offer that everlasting life to others.

I will turn this argument against Pro and show how the Old Testament mentioned salvation to non Jews.

"I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth" Isaiah 49:6

Therefore this argument is negated.

Rebuttal 4: Pro argues that because Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (a Jew), he didn't speak to the "whole world".

This argument is irrelevant. Just because Jesus spoke to a Jew, and not the "whole world" doesn't mean that God only loved Israel. This is non sequitur and I ask the reader to dismiss this argument.

Rebuttal 5: Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up in John 3:14. Pro argues that this verse was meant only for Israel.

But this argument is invalid. The Old Testament is filled with signs and prophecies that were mentioned again in the New Testament [2]. These signs are very allegorical. It doesn't necessitate that every aspect of the reference is also true for what's referencing it. This is important. I will show you an example to illustrate this. In Matthew 12:40, the Bible shows how Jonah's 3 days in the belly of the whale is an example for Jesus 3 days in the tomb. That doesn't mean that every aspect of these two events is the same! Jonah was running away from God's command [3], while Jesus didn't and was expecting His death [4].

Pro's example is far reaching and should be dismissed.

Rebuttal 6: Pro argues that Christ was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and therefore Pro argues that God only loved Israel and not the rest of the world.

Pro again chooses literal reading of the Bible. I've already demonstrated that the definition of Jews and Israel has changed with the coming of Jesus. Here's yet another verse to support my case:
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Romans 9:6.

This argument is negated.

Defense of my case

1. Evidence from the New Testament

a) Pro argues that the sheep mentioned by Jesus are the Jews. What Pro missed is that Jesus said other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. So while I agree that the Jews are His sheep, however the other sheep are necessarily and logically mean the non Jews. Pro fails to refute this argument.

b) Pro conceded that Gentiles means non-Jews, but argues that in rare occasion they can refer to Jews as well. It's the responsibility of Pro to show why these references of Gentiles that I provided somehow fall under that rare category. Pro provided a truck load of verses and I read each one of them. (Deuteronomy 28:64, John 11:47-52, James 1:1, 1 Corinthians 12:2, Isaiah 7:8-9, 1 Kings 12:26-30, Hosea 4:17, Hosea 1:6-11, Ezekiel 37:15-22, Hosea 11:12), none of which even mention the word Gentiles! I ask the reader to dismiss Pro's claim.

Pro then references Ephesians 2:11 which I would like to present to the reader show how this supports my argument as it refers to the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles:

"Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth […] you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:11-13

Thank you Pro for refuting your own argument.

Pro then references Romans 11, which also refutes Pro's own argument. It states that Gentiles has come to make Israel envious [6].

Pro also references 1 Peter 2:10, which also refutes Pro's own argument. It states "Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God" This verse corroborates my argument that the people of Israel has extended beyond the Jews.

Pro then refers to Psalms 147:19-20, that other nations don't know the laws. This is irrelevant. I agree that the Law of Moses was only intended for the Jews. But this has changed in the New Testament. Pro also fails to show why this means God only loved the Jews and no one else.

c) Pro argues that the preceding verse 20 of Romans 3:22-24 shows that it was only referring to the Israelites. But this is ridiculous! This verse shows that no one will be saved by their work alone "…no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law…", but rather by grace "…all are justified freely by his grace …" This supports my argument that the law of Moses is not required for salvation, but "by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus".

d) Pro again argues that the verses prior to Galatians 3:28 were referring to the Jewish law which only applies to the Israelites. I am irritated because this is a bare assertion. The chapter strongly supports my argument. I'll just give an example from the prior verses to the reader:

"Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith" Galatians 3:7-8

Please dismiss Pro's arguments.

2. Evidence from the Old Testament

I will have to address this in the next round because Pro bombarded me with arguments ("Gish Gallop" technique). Please don't penalize me for this.

3. Incompatibility with God's nature

I'm stunned to see that Pro actually argues that God is racist, and that He only deals with Israel (and only loves them!). If the god Pro believes in actually exists, then this god is unjust, not good and not even decent. This god wouldn't be the Most High, because I am not a racist, and therefore I would be better than the god Pro is appealing to! How can Pro say that such a god is not unjust? If Pro's god favors a group over others, not because of their merit or behavior but because of who they are, then this god is extremely unjust.

This debate presupposed the existence of God. There are many definitions of God, but justice and goodness are some of the attributes of God. If God exists and He is just, then He couldn't possibly be racist.

Please dismiss Pro's argument. I am actually bothered.

4. The confused Christians and Jews!

Pro argues that only the Christians and Jews today are confused, but that's not what the Bible says. This is a bare assertion. Pro didn't provide any evidence from the Bible or history that the early Christians or Jews actually believed that God didn’t love others.

Regarding my argument "If God exists, did He just decide to leave His people confused for centuries?" Pro only argues that "Modern day Christians and the fake “Jew-ish” will be confused". But this doesn't answer the question! According to Pro, the Jews include “African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans…etc" [7] Since these are the true Jews, then why are these true Jews so confused not to believe in what Pro is proposing? Did God just forget about them?

Please dismiss Pro's arguments.

Sources

Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://christianity.about.com...
[3] Jonah 1
[4] Matthew 16:21
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] Romans 11:11
[7] Pro's argument, Round 2

Debate Round No. 3
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

“I also wasn't happy with Pro's use of the N word referring to black people, even though Pro used it subtly and may be without poor intentions;”

Actually the “N” word is in the Bible, so if it’s in the Bible, it should be a problem with me using it. All nigger means is dark or black.

Acts 13:1 Nowe there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certaine Prophets and teachers: as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had bene brought vp with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul.

“But in the New Testament, the definition of Jews has changed.(Romans 2:28:29)”

[1] I’d like to make 2 points here. The Most High GOD of Israel does not change.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not: therefore ye sonnes of Iacob are not consumed.

The Most High said HE does not change. So why would HE change in the NT and say HE chooses everyone, not just the Israelites? If that was the case GOD would contradict HIMSELF and cause confusion, but The Most High GOD is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

[2] Romans 2:25-27

[25] For Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepe the Law: but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy Circumcision is made vncircumcision.

[26] Therefore, if the vncircumcision keepe the righteousnesse of the Law, shall not his vncircumcision be counted for Circumcision?

[27] And shall not vncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the Law, iudge thee, who by the letter, and Circumcision, doest transgresse the Law?

So Romans 2:25-27, before Romans 2:28-29, is speaking about those who were and still are under the Law, the only ones who were and still are under the Law is the Israelites.

“Rebuttal 2: Pro argues in Amos 3:1-2 and Psalms 83:3-5 that other nations got jealous.”

Correction: I argued in Amos 3:1-2 that GOD chose Israel out of all the families on the earth and I argued in Psalms 83:3-5 that the heathen took crafty counsel against us because of their jealousy.

“This is irrelevant. Just because the Jews were chosen, Pro must show why this necessitates that God only loved them, and no one else. – I am not GOD, so you’ll have to ask HIM that yourself when HE judges you. “Choice doesn't necessary mean love, it could be a burden. If I choose someone to carry my luggage, does that mean that I love that person, and that person alone?” – Is that how the Bible defines love, as a burden? “This is non-sequitur, and it's Pro's responsibility to show why Israel was the only loved nation.” – Deuteronomy 7:7 The Lord did not set his loue vpon you, nor choose you, because yee were moe in number then any people: for ye were the fewest of all people, – apparently that’s why HE chose us.

“If God offered someone everlasting life, that doesn't mean necessarily that He can't offer that everlasting life to others.”

This means that you are privately interpreting Scripture. According to John 3:16, “whosoever” is Israel, according to the Precept.

Acts 2:21-22

[21] And it shall come to passe, that whosoeuer shall call on the Name of the Lord, shalbe saued.

[22] Yee men of Israel, heare these words, Iesus of Nazareth, a man approued of God among you, by miracles, wonders, and signes, which God did by him in the midst of you, as yee your selues also know:

"I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth" Isaiah 49:6”

If Isaiah 49:6 is read entirely, not just the part that speaks of the “Gentiles”, you will notice that it tells you who the Gentiles are.

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my seruant to raise vp the tribes of Iacob, and to restore the preserued of Israel: I will also giue thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my saluation, vnto the end of the earth.

If you read my previous argument CON about the Northern Kingdom of Israel being considered Gentiles and why they were considered Gentiles, you would be able to understand that the Gentiles are the Israelites, not the heathen Gentiles.

John 7:35 Then saide the Iewes among themselues, Whither will hee goe, that we shall not find him? will he goe vnto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

If the “Gentiles” are the non-Israelites, why would Christ go and teach a scattered people that are among the Gentiles?

“This argument is irrelevant. Just because Jesus spoke to a Jew, and not the "whole world" doesn't mean that God only loved Israel. This is non sequitur and I ask the reader to dismiss this argument.”

No Scripture for this argument?

If you had a note on your fridge that says, “whoever wants a pop get one” does that mean ANYONE outside of your home can get a pop? No, you are leaving that note to those who reside inside your home, you’re not talking to the whole world. So if Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, along with the rest of the Jews, how is that the whole world?

“But this argument is invalid. The Old Testament is filled with signs and prophecies that were mentioned again in the New Testament [2]. These signs are very allegorical. It doesn't necessitate that every aspect of the reference is also true for what's referencing it. This is important. I will show you an example to illustrate this. In Matthew 12:40, the Bible shows how Jonah's 3 days in the belly of the whale is an example for Jesus 3 days in the tomb. That doesn't mean that every aspect of these two events is the same! Jonah was running away from God's command [3], while Jesus didn't and was expecting His death [4].

This argument/refute violates rule # 2. Challenger MUST use the Bible ONLY as evidence.Violating the rules will cause you CON to automatically lose this debate.

“I've already demonstrated that the definition of Jews and Israel has changed with the coming of Jesus.”

If this is true, then what you’re saying is that GOD changes, which is contrary to what HE says in Malachi 3:6. As I mentioned in R2, everything that the OT says, is quoted in the NT. When something is quoted, the meaning of what is quoted does not change. It may be worded in a different way, but the meaning is still the same.

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Romans 9:6.

Romans 9:7 Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rebuttal for a) and b)

I’m not sure if PRO read my refutations in R3 but I stated that the Gentiles are the Israelites; I gave some Scriptures to show that the Israelites have been scattered among the heathen and the Northern Kingdom was grafted in to being called Gentiles because they followed the customs of the heathen. And as I mentioned earlier, why would Christ go and teach the dispersed among the Gentiles (John 7:35) if He came to save all Gentiles?

"Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth […] you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far awayhave been brought near by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:11-13”

And again CON, if you read my previous argument in R3, you’ll understand why the Northern Kingdom was considered Gentiles. And again, if Christ came also for the heathen Gentiles, why would He teach the dispersed Gentiles (John 7:35) among the heathen Gentiles?

Rebuttal for: Romans 11:11; 1 Peter 2:10 – Again, these scriptures go back to the Northern Kingdom of Israel being grafted in as Gentiles as I continue mentioning and as mentioned in R3.

But this has changed in the New Testament.”

What CON fails to realize with this statement is that he saying that GOD changes when GOD clearly says, “I change not” – Malachi 3:6, also, he fails to realize that the NT is quoted from the OT, which means that what was said in the OT is repeated in the NT, nothing new.

“c) This verse shows that no one will be saved by their work alone "…no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law…", but rather by grace "…all are justified freely by his grace …" This supports my argument that the law of Moses is not required for salvation, but "by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus".”

This is going off topic, we are not speaking of the Laws; all I stated was that the Israelites were and still are under the Law of Moses, except for animal sacrifice.


"Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith" Galatians 3:7-8

What CON fails to realize here is that every nation of people have enslaved the Israelites. Every nation took part in our slavery, the Transatlantic Slave Trade. So because every other nation has cursed us, they shall be cursed as Genesis 12:3 says.

GOD loves Israel so much, that HE gave repentance to Israel.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to bee a Prince and a Sauiour, for to giue repentance to Israel, and forgiuenesse of sinnes.

As I mentioned several times, the OT is quoted in the NT, there is nothing new quoted.

Quote: repeat or copy out (a group of words from a text or speech), typically with an indication that one is not the original author or speaker.

I ask CON this question. If GOD loves everybody, why does HE hate?

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Iacob haue I loued, but Esau haue I hated.

Jacob is Israel. As it is written means that this was written before, in Malachi 1:3. Hate is not love, so why does GOD hate if HE loves everyone?

Reader: I’d like you to keep in mind that what I have posted, is all coming from the Bible, not my own private interpretation.

salam.morcos

Con

Debate Objection
I find it inexcusable that Pro continues to use the N words to refer to African Americans. While the KJV Bible uses these words, Pro should note that the KJV Bible was written in the 17th century, and at that time these words were the terms used to refer to African Americans. That doesn't change the fact that this word is now considered offensive to that African American community, and Pro should be respectful to them.

Defense of Contention 2: Evidence from the Old Testament
As I mentioned in my previous round, I wasn't able to defend my second contention to rebut the number of arguments put forward in this debate, so I will defend it here.

a) Pro argues that the reference to foreigners in Isaiah 56:6-7, refers to Jews! Pro's explanation: Because these foreigners kept the Sabbath, then they are not really foreigners anymore.

This is another invalid argument by Pro. What this verse clearly means, that foreigners, who are not Jews, can join the Jews in worship of God. In other words, non Jews can become Jews. This supports my claim that God loves non Jews. Please dismiss Pro's argument.

c) Pro doesn't challenge my example regarding Jonah. I extend.

d) Pro argues that the reference to "many nations" in Micah 4:2 somehow means Israel! Pro states: “The Law will go out from Zion: Again, who was the Law given to? Israel, not the heathen nations."

Pro's argument is invalid! The verse states that the Law will go out from Zion to many nations. If Pro didn't notice, this refers to the future! Pro states that the law was already given to the Israelites in the past. This verse strong corroborates my claim. Please dismiss Pro's argument.

Rebuttals of New Contentions

Rebuttal 7: Pro argues that God doesn't change. Pro argues "why would HE change in the NT and say HE chooses everyone, not just the Israelites?"

Pro is assuming something that I didn't make. God didn't change in the New Testament. He didn't all of a sudden decide: "Hey! Wait a second… There are these other people that I kind of forgot about for thousands of years… May be I should love them too!" I've shown evidence from the Old Testament that God loved everyone, but chose Israel to carry the law.

Pro's argument is invalid and should be dismissed.

Rebuttal 8: Pro argues in Romans 2:25-27 before Romans 2:28-29 "is speaking about those who were and still are under the Law, the only ones who were and still are under the Law is the Israelites."

Pro again is reading out of context. Romans 2 clearly defends my claim, and is chastises the Jews! Out of respect to the reader, I will not post the entire chapter here, but feel free to give it a quick read and then vote Con [2]. The debate can end here. But here's a quick example:
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:14

Rebuttal 9: Pro argues that "If the “Gentiles” are the non-Israelites, why would Christ go and teach a scattered people that are among the Gentiles?" citing John 7:35. This argument is ridiculous! The words are not Jesus' words, but the words of the confused Jews who were confused by Jesus message John 7:33-34. This is an invalid argument and should be dismissed.

Rebuttals to Pro's Defense

Rebuttal 2: I argued that Con must show that Gold only loved Israel, and Israel alone. Pro's defense is self refuting! Pro states: "I am not GOD, so you’ll have to ask HIM that yourself when HE judges you".

Did Pro just concede this debate? Wasn't it Pro who instigated this debate and the one who made the truth claim: "For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world"? If Pro can't show why God loved Israel and Israel alone, then why did Pro instigate this debate? I argue that this debate is basically over and the reader should simply vote Con. And I mean this sincerely.

I argued that choice doesn't necessitate love. Pro's response: "Is that how the Bible defines love, as a burden?" What? Pro's response is irrelevant. Just to reiterate, Pro inferred in Round 2 that God loves the Jews because they were chosen, and not the rest of the world. I extend my rebuttal that choice doesn't necessitate love. Pro's argument should be dismissed.

Pro then shows why God chose the Jews. This is a red herring and should be dismissed.

Rebuttal 3: Pro argues that "whoever believes in him" refers to Israel in John 3:16, arguing that I am somehow privately interpreted the scripture. To support the claim, Pro provides additional verses from Acts 2:21-22. Pro's arguments are clearly out of context! The first verse Acts 2:21 is part of a reference to the Old Testament. Acts 2:22 is the beginning of a new paragraph! See it for yourself [4]. But in any case, this chapter was about the Pentecost event where the disciples learned to speak every language in the world so they can preach to the entire world, without regard to age, sex, social status or, as Acts 2:39 indicates, ethnic origin [4]. This supports my claim against Con's.

Pro then argues that the Gentiles are only the Northern Kingdom, and sites Isaiah 49:6. I will post the entire verse here in an easier to read version (NIV):
"he says: 'It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6

While I agree that the verse refers to the lost tribes of Jacob. But the second sentence says "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles" The word also clearly separates those Gentiles from the tribes of Jacob. "also" can also be found in KJV, so this can't be argues as a translation error. This refutes Pro's argument.

Rebuttal 4: Pro insists that Jesus speech with Nicodemus means that He was referring to the Jews only, and not the rest of the world. The example of pop Pro provided is funny, and is a red herring. As I've mentioned earlier, speaking to a Jew doesn't means the message is only to the Jews. This argument should be dismissed.

Rebuttal 6: Pro disagrees that the definition of Jew and Israel has changed in the New Testament. Pro's claims that I am arguing that God changes! But I didn't claim such a thing, and nor does my argument necessitate God to change. This argument should be dismissed.

Defense to my Contentions

1. Evidence from the New Testament

c) Pro argues that I'm going off topic when I argue that "the Law of Moses is not required for salvation". But I'm not going off topic, because if non Jews can be saved, then that corroborates my argument. Please dismiss Pro's argument.

Pro then makes a strange argument! When I cite Galatians 3:7-8 to show that "Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith", Pro rebuts by saying that "every nation of people have enslaved the Israelites"! This is irrelevant and should be dismissed.

Pro's other argument that God loves Israel so much is also irrelevant. Pro fails to show that God only loved Israel which is the proposition of this debate.

3. Incompatibility with God's nature

Pro counters by saying if God loves everyone, why does He hate? Pro cites Romans 9:13 which refers to Malachi 1:3. There are two problems with this argument: First, the proposition of this debate is that God only loved Israel and hated the world. Pro is trying to change the subject.

But for the sake of the reader, I will explain this argument briefly, as Pro took it out of context. Esau's other name is Edom [5]. Both Malachi and Paul were referring to the Edomites who were the descendents of Esau.

This argument is a red herring and should be dismissed.


Sources

[1] Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] Joel 2:28-32
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] Malachi 1:1-4

Debate Round No. 4
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

To conclude this debate, I first want to thank CON for the opportunity to debate this matter and go over a few arguments.

Secondly, I'd like the reader to know that CON contradicted many statements he made; the biggest contradiction was what he posted in R4 and he stated, "Pro is assuming something that I didn't make. God didn't change in the New Testament. He didn't all of a sudden decide: "Hey! Wait a second… There are these other people that I kind of forgot about for thousands of years… May be I should love them too!" I've shown evidence from the Old Testament that God loved everyone, but chose Israel to carry the law." So GOD only chose Israel in the OT and is giving Israel everlasting salvation as stated in Isaiah 45:17, why would HE give the Israelites and the heathen Gentiles salvation in the NT if HE does not change? That's a contradiction. I provided many Scriptures showing that there are two types of Gentiles in the Bible: the heathen Gentiles, and the Israelite Gentiles or the dispersed. It seems CON continues to ignore the verses I provided in R3 and continues claiming I never explained that the Israelites (Northern Kingdom) are the Gentiles.

When I gave Scripture to explain John 3:14 CON brought "In Matthew 12:40, the Bible shows how Jonah's 3 days in the belly of the whale is an example for Jesus 3 days in the tomb." Jonah being in the belly of a whale for 3 days being an example of Jesus 3 days in the tomb has nothing to do with this topic, therefore I did not refute this. As I stated, the NT quotes the OT, so John 3:14 is quoting Numbers 21:5-9 in the OT. The ones who were in the wilderness according to Scripture are the Israelites.

CON then says in R4, "Pro argues that "If the “Gentiles” are the non-Israelites, why would Christ go and teach a scattered people that are among the Gentiles?" citing John 7:35. This argument is ridiculous! The words are not Jesus' words, but the words of the confused Jews who were confused by Jesus message John 7:33-34. This is an invalid argument and should be dismissed." CON is correct, the words are not Jesus and I never stated that Jesus spoke those words, I will quote what I said, "If the “Gentiles” are the non-Israelites, why would Christ go and teach a scattered people that are among the Gentiles? " I will admit that I made a mistake in this question; Christ didn't go among the dispersed, but as CON says the "confused Jews" asked if Christ will go among the dispersed Gentiles and teach the Gentiles. So Southern Kingdom also knew that the Gentiles Christ is giving salvation to are the dispersed or Northern Kingdom.

"Rebuttal 6: Pro disagrees that the definition of Jew and Israel has changed in the New Testament. Pro's claims that I am arguing that God changes! But I didn't claim such a thing, and nor does my argument necessitate God to change. This argument should be dismissed." If the OT says that GOD only loves Israel (Malachi 1:2), that does not mean the whole world. The Israelites are a particular people, not the whole world. So if CON says, "But in the New Testament, the definition of Jews has changed." then what he is saying is that GOD changes and in the OT GOD said that HE loves Israel (Jacob is Israel), not the world.

"Rebuttal 2: I argued that Con must show that Gold only loved Israel, and Israel alone. Pro's defense is self refuting! Pro states: "I am not GOD, so you’ll have to ask HIM that yourself when HE judges you"." - Not sure what CON is talking about here, I answered his question when I posted, "Deuteronomy 7:7 The Lord did not set his loue vpon you, nor choose you, because yee were moe in number then any people: for ye were the fewest of all people, – apparently that’s why HE chose us."

"Rebuttal 3: Pro argues that "whoever believes in him" refers to Israel in John 3:16, arguing that I am somehow privately interpreted the scripture. To support the claim, Pro provides additional verses from Acts 2:21-22. Pro's arguments are clearly out of context! The first verse Acts 2:21 is part of a reference to the Old Testament. Acts 2:22 is the beginning of a new paragraph! See it for yourself [4]. But in any case, this chapter was about the Pentecost event where the disciples learned to speak every language in the world so they can preach to the entire world, without regard to age, sex, social status or, as Acts 2:39 indicates, ethnic origin [4]. This supports my claim against Con's." - CON, the Bible is not going to be on one topic for a few Scriptures, then jump on a completely different topic for the remaining scriptures, that's confusion. Acts 2:1-47 is all on one topic. Reader, here is how my Bible shows Scripture:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

"c) Pro argues that I'm going off topic when I argue that "the Law of Moses is not required for salvation". But I'm not going off topic, because if non Jews can be saved, then that corroborates my argument. Please dismiss Pro's argument." - This does go off topic because the Laws are a different topic. All I stated is that Israel is the only nation that was and still is under the law, but CON if you'd like we can also debate the Laws in a different debate. If interested, let me know in the comment section.

"Pro then makes a strange argument! When I cite Galatians 3:7-8 to show that "Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith", Pro rebuts by saying that "every nation of people have enslaved the Israelites"! This is irrelevant and should be dismissed." Galatians 3:8 quotes Genesis 12:3; all nations enslaved us, they did not bless us.

"Pro's other argument that God loves Israel so much is also irrelevant. Pro fails to show that God only loved Israel which is the proposition of this debate." - Already proved this, Deuteronomy 7:7.

"Pro counters by saying if God loves everyone, why does He hate? Pro cites Romans 9:13 which refers to Malachi 1:3. There are two problems with this argument: First, the proposition of this debate is that God only loved Israel and hated the world. Pro is trying to change the subject." - Not changing the subject, just asking CON that if GOD loves everyone and not just Israel as CON claims, why does HE hate Esau as stated in Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3? Never got a response from CON, can he not answer the question? This question is related to the topic.

"But for the sake of the reader, I will explain this argument briefly, as Pro took it out of context. Esau's other name is Edom [5]. Both Malachi and Paul were referring to the Edomites who were the descendents of Esau." - Esau is Edom, which also means red - Genesis 25:25. Esau was born red and hair, there is a people on this earth today that have red skin; their blood can be seen through their skin. So this people, GOD hates them.

All in all, CON doesn’t understand the Scriptures that I posted about Israel being grafted in as Gentiles and continued saying that I never explained how the Gentiles are just the Israelites, when I did. CON also gave a few private interpretations, for instance the whole Jonah in the belly, etc..., which had nothing to do with this topic. He also posted something from an online article for evidence, when I clearly stated in the rules in R1 that the Bible ONLY must be used as evidence. The number one contradiction that CON makes is that he says GOD does not change (Malachi 3:6), yet he says, “in the NT Jew has a new definition” and he is basically saying that GOD changed and now loves everyone, when GOD clearly said that Israel will have an everlasting salivation (Isaiah 45:17) and Israel has HE only known (Amos 3:1-2).

2 Esdras 6:56 As for the other people which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like vnto spittle, and hast likened the abundance of them vnto a drop that falleth from a vessell.

This verse quotes Isaiah 40:15 which says, “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, hee taketh vp the yles as a very litle thing.”

Audience, I'd like you to keep this in mind. If GOD says that the other nations are as a drop of a bucket, meaning a drop of water that falls from a bucket, which a drop that falls from a bucket means nothing to anyone, how could HE love all nations? GOD is comparing the other nations, not Israel, to a drop of water that falls from a bucket, that's not love. No one cares if a drop of water falls from a bucket; GOD is saying he doesn't care about the other nations, they are as a drop of a bucket.

Reader: The Apocrypha is part of my Bible, it is in my Bible and all it does is quote the OT and has the rest of our captivities that are missing from the regular bible with the OT and NT.

So again, thank you CON for the opportunity to debate this talking matter. Good luck to you in your future debates.

salam.morcos

Con

I want to thank Pro for this debate. But I am exhausted and I feel that this debate has gone longer that it should. I'll try (if I can) to keep my arguments short for the sake of the reader (and my sanity).

Debate Objection

It appears that Pro didn't like my objection to him using the N word, and Pro's use of too many arguments (Gish Gallop), so Pro accuses me that I violated Rule #2 for not citing the Bible in my source: http://christianity.about.com.... However that source cites 44 New Testament verses and their related verses in the Old Testament. Did Pro and the reader expect me to list all of them! When I cite biblegateway.com so the reader can easily read the verse, am I violating this rule? These are still biblical sources and the reader should dismiss Pro's claim.

Summary

I presented my case to show that the proposition that "God only loved Israel, but hated the world" is false.

1. I presented evidence from the New Testament
2. I presented evidence from the Old Testament
3. This claim is incompatible with God's nature
4. All Christians and Jews believed that God's love wasn't limited to the Jews only, so did God just leave His people so confused all these centuries?

Pro failed to refute (or even weaken) any of my contentions. At the same time, Pro made more than 10 arguments, all of which were either invalid, fallacious or worked to support my contentions. I've also demonstrated many instances where Pro was reading verses out of context.

I ask the reader to vote Con and dismiss Pro's claim.

Final Response

Pro provided additional arguments in the final round, which I'll respond to here:

1. Pro claims that I contradicted myself when I said that God didn’t change. Pro's explanation: If God offered salvation only to Israel in the Old Testament, why did He offer salvation to the Gentiles in the New Testament? But I didn't claim such a thing! I didn't state anywhere that God offered salvation only to Israel in the Old Testament. I showed many examples to the contrary, so Pro's argument is invalid.

2. Pro argues that my example regarding Jonah and Jesus is out of topic. I am not sure if Pro is reading my arguments, or not! It's not out of topic. I used this example to show that Pro is misusing the Old Testament, and to show that just because two verses in the Bible are related, "[it] doesn't necessitate that every aspect of the reference is also true for what's referencing it." See Round 3 for the explanation.

3. Pro argues that because I said the definition of Jews and Israel changed in the New Testament, then it follows that I am implying that God changed. This is non-sequitur. This argument should be dismissed.

4. I challenged Pro to show that God only loved Israel and Israel alone. Pro answers by showing that God chose Israel because they "were the fewest of all people". Pro's answer is simply inadequate, and it doesn't show that God only loves Israel and no one else. I've also shown before in Round 3, that choice doesn't necessitate love. My challenge stands.

5. I showed in Round 4 that Pro's use of Acts 2:21-22 is clearly out of context, because the two verses are part of two paragraphs. I've shown references in that chapter itself that support my claim. Pro's response in the last round is inadequate.

6. Pro argues that "all notions enslaved [the Jews]". This is irrelevant to the proposition of this debate.

7. Pro brings the subject of Esau again. I've mentioned to the reader that God was referring to the Edomites. I didn't want to bring too much theology, so I apologize to the reader that I will bring it here. But basically, the Bible makes use of words in allegorical forms. For example, God demands that we love our parents, it's one of the ten commandments [1]. At the same time, the Bible says:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26.

Why did I bring the above example? A literal read of this verse suggests that we must hate everyone! That's not reasonable. I could literally bring more than 20 verses commanding us to love. So what's the context of that verse? That verse was meant to show that we shouldn't put anyone, including ourselves, above God. So it's important to understand the context of the story of Esau.

8. Pro claims to provide evidence that the reference to the Gentiles is actually "not really the Gentiles". Pro argues that they are also Jews! This claim is extraordinary, and I've shown many examples why that cannot be the case. There were verses that specifically name both the Jews and the Gentiles. Yet Pro argues that these Gentiles are only the Jews of the Northern Kingdom. Without evidence, this could even be considered kritik, but I don't want to go there.

9. The argument that the nations are a drop of a bucket is simply irrelevant. Pro is over reaching by assuming that God doesn't hate them. Really? But the Bible describes all His people as dust [2]. The Bible is allegorical.

I apologize to the reader who's probably exhausted at this point. But if you survived this ordeal, please vote Con!

Thank you.

Sources
[1] Exodus 20:12

[2] Psalms 103:14

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
CON, you never showed us why GOD that supposedly loves everyone, hates Esau or the Edomites.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
Yup. The entire Bible was written to the Israelites, by the Israelites, for the Israelites.
Posted by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
CookieMonster9
So are you saying by the title that God only loves Israel?
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
I strongly suggest picking which translation of the bible the debate is to rely on.
No votes have been placed for this debate.