In Revelation 7 Jesus puts his mark of protection on 144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel. This will protect them from the 5th trumpet that unleashes locusts that look like horses with human faces and female hair and crowns and breastplates of iron and tails with stingers like scorpions.
These monsters torture everyone except those 144,000 Jews that were protected by the seal. It is then revealed that these 144,000 are all Jewish incels, and they have been redeemed.
So why did Jesus decide to save these Jews, and not the goyim?
This is odd. Also odd is that the only time the goyim are especially mentioned in this book is in Revelation 11:1-2. These verses say that the goyim are not admitted in the temple of God with "its worshipers" (which are presumably all Jews). The goyim are left outside and treated differently.
This reminds me of Matthew 15:24-26, where Jesus refers to us goyim as dogs.
I think the goyim can still be saved (at least those who let themselves be killed in the name of Christ - it's unclear if other goyim will also be saved), but why does Jesus give special privileges for the Jews?
In the same way, "Jew" in the New Testament does not mean "literal blood descendant of the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel". This can be translated just as fairly as "Judaean" (i.e., a resident of the Roman province of Judaea). Jew in the New Testament is geographical - not racial or even religious.
Both "Jew" and "Gentile" have taken on inherently racial connotations in more recent times that are not supported or intended by the text itself.
As an example, the murderous Herods were actually Edomites (an accursed race), but they were categorised as "Jews" due to John Hyrcanus forcibly converting the Edomites around 135 BC.
Modern archaeology also backs this up: there is increasing evidence indicating that [the Jews today actually have Canaanite DNA](https://archive.is/oLK5q), not the totally separate DNA they ought to have if they really were legit Israelites originating in far-distant Ur. In order to uphold their "true Israelite" LARP, some Jews jump to the conclusion that this means the Israelites must have actually originated in Canaan all along (making the whole Genesis/Exodus account fictional).
The geographical definition of a Jew explains why you'll find various points where the early believers are hiding from "the Jews" despite also being "Jews" themselves in the broadest sense.
When believers speak of converting "Jews", this is very specifically about their race, not the physical residents. In Romans 9, Paul is concerned for his literal relatives ("my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh". Later, God shows Paul that the gospel is also for the dispersed brethren of the tribes ("Gentiles"), not solely for the remnant found in Judaea itself.
There are various examples where a clear distinction is made between God's literal people Israel and those merely residing in the physical boundaries of Israel, Judaea, or Jerusalem, e.g.:
* In Matthew 8, Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, saying "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" and contrasts the dispersed sheep being accepted with the residents being rejected: "many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness"
* In Romans 9, Paul outs himself as a racist - he's concerned specifically for his racial brethren ("my countrymen according to the flesh"), not the local residents in general, and even says "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
* You'll surely be familiar with the Synagogue of Satan™ label in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, but note this also says "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" - they claim to be legit Israelites by virtue of geography, but they aren't. Sounds familiar, right?
Jesus never tries "soul winning" with His racial enemies. In John 10, Jesus tells "the Jews" that He's here for His sheep. "Sheep = muh Jews", right? Well, not quite. Here, Jesus says the scattered people afar off are *already* His sheep even though He clearly says they haven't even heard about Him yet - but Jesus then says His enemies in Judaea are not His sheep. Jesus says the reason why His enemies do not believe is because they are not His sheep (rather than what we might expect, that they simply haven't "become sheep" because they don't believe).
No, they claim to be legit Israelites (i.e. Jews) by virtue of their blood. This is clear if you read John 8: first Jesus acknowledges that the Jews who want to kill him are blood descendant of Abraham, and then he says that (spiritually) they are the children of the devil *because they rejected him*.
Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9 can be understood by carefully reading John 8.
I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with you saying that the term "Jew" refers to geography. Jew means that one is a blood descendant of Jacob and the 12 tribes.
In fact, in the book of Esther Mordecai is referred to as a "Jew" of the tribe of Benjamin, who lives in Susa. Susa is very far away from Judea, and he lives there, but he's called a Jew because he's a descendant of Benjamin.
Back when America was founded, "American" was implicitly a white man, likely a literal descendant of the early settlers - but this changed over time to be anyone of any race who merely lives within the physical boundaries of the US. In the same way, Jew was originally a strict racial, tribal definition (i.e., a Judahite - of the tribe of Judah specifically).
After Israel split into two kingdoms, a Judahite became a racial Israelite dwelling in the kingdom of Judah (who might be descended from any of the twelve tribes). This is how you see Jew used in Esther etc. during/after the exile - not always the tribe of Judah,
but it was still implicitly racial.
By the New Testament era, Jew had shifted to be a vague religious/geographical label. We see this in how the Herods are called Jews despite being Edomites (who are not even descended from Jacob, let alone Judah).
As for Jesus calling the Jews Abraham's seed, this is true but I think you're confusing Abraham and Jacob a bit here. Strictly speaking, Israelites were literal blood descendants of the man Jacob specifically, not merely his grandfather Abraham - so as with the Herods, one could be a "Jew" (from Abraham) while not actually being an Israelite.
Abraham fathered Isaac and Ishmael - but Isaac was the heir of the promise, and Ishmael was rejected. The Arabs today have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Isaac fathered Esau (aka Edom) and Jacob (aka Israel) - but Jacob was chosen, and Esau was rejected. Like the Ishmaelites, Esau's descendants the Edomites have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Various secular histories cover times when groups known to have no descent from Jacob became "Jews" through religion or geography. Some had descent from Abraham, but that wasn't a requirement either.
The DNA study I linked to lines up with this - the Jews themselves have acknowledged at various points that they have some descent from Esau/Canaan/etc., making them "Jews" religiously (Judaism) and geographically (their ancestors lived in Canaan), but but not in the actual, literal sense of being blood descendants of the patriarch Jacob.