re: Mike Johnson disagrees with Trump. The West Bank belongs to Israel.

Seems like it should to me as well.
.

What freedom loving person is not in favor of Israel taking control of a terrorist region? Either they take it or we take it. Do we want to send our troops in? I didn't think so.

For purposes of their own survival, Israel needs to take back as much of its original land as they can. Any country would feel the same way, when under constant threat from their enemies.

People here are all in favor of us taking Greenland, but when Israel wants to take strategic land people start shaking their fists and screaming that the Jews own the world.

1. Of course Mark Levin agrees with Mike Johnson

2. Mike needs to never be invited to a UFC fight again with the boys

3. America First. Best of luck, Israel, and I mean that but want no part of it.

quote:

---

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

---

Romans 4:13

quote:

---

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

---

Romans 4:16

quote:

---

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

---

Romans 9:6-8

quote:

---

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

---

1 Peter 2:9

The everlasting covenant God made with Abraham has always been based on faith, not ethnicity.

quote:

---

At this point, the idea of a two state solution is dead.

---

It's been dead for decades. I believe the score is 0-13 for the number of two state solutions that the "Palestinians" have rejected since around 1948.

Anyone who thinks that a "two-state solution" is possible is a fool.

You are conflating salvation of all people, with the specific promise to Abraham. That promise to Abraham was not conditional, and was not a promise of inherent salvation to all his descendants. God chose Israel as a special people unto Himself by which to bless the world, and His promise included special blessings that He would give to Israel. And since it is an everlasting covenant, it did not simply end after Jesus was resurrected.

All of the verses you're citing are talking about salvation. We know that not all Jews will be saved, nor were all saved before Jesus. There were those who rebelled.

The covenant with Abraham was specific to Israel, and Israel still has never obtained all the land which was promised to them, which means that must still come to pass. Throughout history, we've seen the Jews exiled or held in captivity for rebellion. But they were always restored when they repented. So, while not all Jews believe, and are therefore not saved, there will be a remnant who will repent and be saved, and their land restored. That is the Abrahamic covenant. Not the New Covenant, pertaining to salvation of all people who believe.

The promise to Abraham was for his offspring - namely Jesus (Gal 3:16). It was not a covenant with Israel as no such people existed at the time. The covenant with Israel came through Moses, not Abraham.

This is also exemplified in the calling of Abraham in Gen 12. Abraham was gentile, as there was no such thing as Israel or Jews. The calling of Abraham was for all the families of the earth.

quote:

---

It was not a covenant with Israel as no such people existed at the time.

---

I specifically stated that it was a covenant with Abraham. Which it was.

quote:

---

This is also exemplified in the calling of Abraham in Gen 12. Abraham was gentile, as there was no such thing as Israel or Jews. The calling of Abraham was for all the families of the earth.

---

He was not a gentile. He was a Hebrew. The Hebrews are the Jewish people. The terms "Gentile" and "Jew" did not exist yet, but later became the terms to distinguish between the Israelite's and all nations outside of it.

Abraham was promised that through his seed God would make a great nation. And later, of course, God would change Abraham's son Jacob's name to Israel. And that would become the name of this great nation. Abraham was promised a great nation through his seed, and land for this nation. And that is exactly what happened, and this land would become Israel, because the people were called Israel, even before they possessed the land. So when God specifically refers "My people" Israel, it is abundantly clear that He's not talking about the whole world. He set Israel apart to fulfill His purposes. I think that you are aware of that, and I'm not sure why or how this is a point of contention. We, as gentiles, are grafted into the tree as children of God, but that is separate with the promises to Abraham and his descendants, in how He chose them to carry out His purposes.

The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are two separate things. So no, God's promise to Abraham was not through Moses. Moses received the Ten Commandments and conditional promises based upon their obedience, which they broke, proving that no one could possibly earn salvation, but needed a Savior. The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional.

quote:

---

don't know what you're arguing about then. It seems like you agreed with every point I made. Except again, he was not a Hebrew either as those didn't exist yet either. He was Chaldean.

---

I'm honestly not sure how you came the conclusion that I agreed with you. I quite literally did not agree with anything other than a technicality that the word "Israel" did not exist. And I demonstrated how that was purely semantics, as the Promise was to Abraham and his descendants, and his descendants would later be called Israel. So your argument was not relevant to the point.

And yes, the term "Hebrew" did exist, as the Bible refers to him as a Hebrew, in Genesis. Geographically he came from a city of the Chaldees, but clearly his lineage was considered Hebrew, otherwise, why would the Bible call him a Hebrew?

quote:

---

The covenant with Abraham was for all people, just just Israel. The New Testament is explicitly clear on that regard.

---

The New covenant was and is a covenant for all people. That is what the New Testament is about. Again, you are conflating, as before, salvation with the Abrahamic covenant. All of those verses you cited way earlier were talking about being saved. Being a Jew does not guarantee salvation, as some have misunderstood. And those verses are saying as much. This does not have anything to do with the fact that Israel, because they are the descendants of Abraham, are chosen specifically for God's purposes.

Mike America last needs to go.

I’m absolutely tired of the Isreal before the us nonsense