ENGLAND'S CONFUSING RELIGIONS
Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore
February 16, 2020
Scripture Reading: Mark 16:15 “And He (Jesus) said unto them (His eleven disciples), Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATES
A Roman Catholic man who is one of most corrupt, mafia bosses that our country has ever had, is a multi-millionaire, who is faltering because of all the criminal involvement that was revealed in the impeaching trial, or
An open sodomite man who has a same-sex partner and was a former wall street investor, who has over $300,000 in student debt, and is worth under a million dollars, who is a puppet for the secretive McKinsey consulting firm, or
A man who is an Ashkenazi Jewish Marxist communist who suffered a heart attack three months ago, who bought his third home for over $600,000 after the last election, and is a millionaire, a draft-dodging, deadbeat dad who lived off of welfare and four different women, one with which he had a child out of wedlock, and had three marriages which did not work out, and a brief stint living in a kibbutz in Israel, or
A mongrel woman who has a part Indian heritage who is a big supporter of LGBTQ, is very pro-choice and is a heavy promoter of universal health care, who is a multi-millionaire, or
A crypto-Jewish woman who is very pro-Israeli, whose father is Slovene, and mother is Swiss/German, and is a millionaire, or
A man who is the son of Twainian immigrants, (candidate has dropped out) or
Two Jewish men who are billionaires, or
A woman who is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian, worth under a million dollars, or
A woman, who is a murderous witch, who is waiting for none of the above to get enough delegates, who will be asked to run once again, who is a multi-millionaire
A Christian is forbidden to vote for any of these candidates. They would sin if they would go to the ballot box and cast their vote for any of them. They are either the wrong race, gender or their behavior is a capital abomination. Several of the above have dropped out of the race, some after the second primary. But they all support universal health care, are pro-choice, support LGBTQ organizations, support drug use, are in favor of reparations, they compensate illegal aliens, support environmental climate change, and favor gun control sanctify cities and other policies. All are against the Laws of God.
Deuteronomy 17:15b: “…thou mayest not set a (racial) stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”
PREACHER MARGARET COURT
All the democratic candidates are in favor of the LGBTQ agenda. While it’s becoming increasingly rare for self-proclaiming pastors and ministers (for example: Pastor Franklin Graham [son of Billy] had to cancel his meeting in Liverpool, England and other cities in Britain due to his LGBTQ stand and is now planning to go to other cities in Britain to speak out against the LGBTQ agenda) one fiery preacher [a woman] from Australia who’s also a former professional tennis player is boldly telling it like it is, no matter the consequences.
Margaret Court, who heads up Victory Life Church in Perth, recently delivered a message to her congregation about the transgender athlete trend, and LGBQT rights, saying both are “of the devil”.
The 77-year-old tennis legend [she is the same age as I am], who won a record 24 Grand Slam singles titles during her tennis career, told her audience that athletes, both male and female, only stand to be harmed by their acceptance of this onslaught of perversion that’s washing over society like a tidal wave of wickedness. Court also specifically addressed the transgender targeting of children, warning that children as young as seven are being “transitioned” into “other” genders by child-abusing “parents” and “medical professionals.”
“It’s so wrong at that age because a lot of things are planted in this thought realm and they start to question, ‘what am I?’” Court stated from her multi-cultural pulpit.
LGBTQ IS “NOT OF GOD”, MARGARET COURT SAYS
In the past, Court has delivered sermons condemning homosexuality as well, including loud-and-proud lesbian tennis players whom she says have a negative and corrupting influence on younger tennis players, not to mention their younger fans.
[The Bible plainly says in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”]
“You know, even though LGBTQ is in the schools, it’s of the devil, it’s not of God,” Court is quoted as having stated, earning her plenty of condemnation from the Cult of LGBQT and its “allies”.
Billie Jean King, a 12-time Grand Slam tennis champion, last year called for Court’s name to be removed from the Australian Open Show Court in Melbourne simply because she finds Court’s viewpoints on homosexuality and LGBTQ “offensive”.
[Shows how tolerant and hypocritical the anti-God side is. Their anger is based on what the God of the Bible says about their actions and what their punishment should be.]
But none of this phases Court, who’s repeatedly doubled down on her convictions and even become bolder in the face of persecution from the LGBQT mafia.
“You have got young people taking hormones and having changes, by the time they are 17. They are thinking, ‘Now I’m a boy and really I was a girl.’ Because you know what, God made us that way,” Court has stated about transgender regret.
And the reason why the media, academia, and governments are going along with this perversion is because “the devil” controls these institutions, Court has further pointed out.
“The devil gets in and the media and the political, the education, TV–he wants to control a nation so he can affect people’s minds and mouths,” Court contends.
[Who did our Savior say where the children of the devil? “Your father is the devil.”]
“I can go on television and if I say, ‘Well, this is what the Bible says’, well, it’s like opening a can of worms” she further notes. “My goodness, you’ve let a torpedo off or something. No, it’s true, because they hate the word of God.”
[Who is it that hates the Word of God? Do you think that Margaret would vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Pete Buttigieg, who is an out of the closet sodomite?]
In honor of her many ministry accomplishments she has received an Honorary Doctor of Laws from Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma USA. How many women preachers were there in the 1900 years after our Savior’s resurrection?
And of all the democratic candidates, one is actually a sodomite, the others are tolerant of it. Do you think that they are Christian?
The Stuart Kings of England were terrible. They were horrible. King James I; his son, Charles I; his son, Charles II; and Charles II’s brother, James II were the lowest of the low. James I was the first king of the Stuarts, who was not just king over three countries, but ruled with two different parliaments in three different nations which had three different prominent religions:
Scotland had just turned Presbyterian,
England was Pope-less Catholic; called Episcopalian in the United States; the Church of England or Anglican in England, and
Ireland was predominately Catholic.
Presbyterian was from the bottom up; the people chose the clergy. The Church of England was from the top down; the clergy was appointed by the king. Catholicism was from the top down; the clergy was appointed by the Pope’s staff.
A notable event happened in the early days of King James I’s reign. On November 5, 1605, a group of English Catholics attempted to assassinate the king and destroy Parliament in the Palace of Westminster. However, the Gunpowder Plot was exposed and prevented, and the convicted plotters were hanged, drawn, and quartered.
King James I and many in the Parliament were plotted against by Catholics to be assassinated by being blown up by a bomb! Wow! Things were certainly in an uproar in those days. This plot occurred just two years after the king began his reign in England. He was also the king of Scotland and Ireland for 36 years prior to his coronation in England.
Is this like we are seeing in our country? An unfair impeachment, the Speaker of the House tearing up the official State of the Union speech of the President, several of the witnesses to the house were fired, etc.? We are witnessing nothing more than the advertisement for a giant “wrestling match”; “good guy versus bad guy" when they both are from the same root.
The practical unification of England and Scotland under one ruler was an important shift of order for both nations and would shape their existence to the present day. Another development of crucial significance was the foundation of the first British and Scottish colonies on the North American continent and in Ireland:
1607 at Jamestown (named after King James I), Virginia (named after the “Virgin Queen—Queen Elizabeth I),
1609 at Ulster, Ireland (settled by mainly Scottish settlers in Northern Ireland),
1610 at Newfoundland, and
1620 at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.
1633 at Charles Towne (named after King Charles II), South Carolina (named after Charles IX of France, Charles I and Charles II).
1733 at Savannah, Georgia (named after King George II).
The world was changing. New worlds were opening for exploration and settling. There was a new place for the defeated to flee and a place for the victorious to send their conquered slaves.
And what is not usually talked about, was the financial situation that came upon the new royalty. For example, King James VI was deeply in debt in Scotland, and after 1603 he inherited an English debt of £350,000 from Queen Elizabeth. By 1608 the English debt had risen to £1,400,000 and was increasing by £140,000 annually.
Through a crash program of selling off some of the Royal property, Lord Treasurer Robert Cecil reduced the debt to £300,000 and the annual deficit to £46,000 by 1610—but could not follow the same method of relief much farther. The result was a series of tense and often failed negotiations with Parliament for financial supports, a situation that deteriorated over the reigns of King James I and his son, the future King Charles I, until the crisis of the English Civil War. The debt was complicated by a severe economic depression in 1620–1626, complicated by a serious outbreak of bubonic plague in London in 1625.
And what did Oliver Cromwell do, when he abolished the Monarchy in 1649? He let the Jews back into England after 360 years and took usurious loans from them. “Nothing new under the sun.”
But before that happened, in 1638, the National Covenant was presented and signed in the Presbyterian churches in Scotland. The people of the Reformation in Scotland took a stand. This was a document of great importance in the history of Scotland. This was a crucial development in a turbulent period in Scotland’s history, revolving around religious and civil freedom. I would have been in favor of this covenant written by the leaders of the new Presbyterians and would have gladly signed this covenant, myself.
For centuries, the idea of monarchs ruling by “divine right” was the established norm; but reformers, though loyal to the monarch, could not accept the idea of his or her divine authority to govern. But the reformers were wrong on this point—the Royal family, descended from King David, did have the divine authority to govern.
The Covenant was the resulting declaration of rights; the right of ordinary people to exercise their God-given consciences in matters of faith and life. By encouraging people to read the Scriptures for themselves, it could be argued that the Reformation movement led eventually to the ideas of democratic rights that developed during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. But did they read the Scriptures correctly?
Scotland had rejected the Church of England; the religion in Scotland was Protestant Presbyterian. King Charles I was mostly Catholic. Protestant Presbyterian Britain citizens were in a turmoil. So, what did they do? They joined with their contemporaries in Scotland in 1643 by signing the Covenant with them.
The Covenant takes about 20 minutes to read. It was written by Scottish Presbyterians. It was very anti-Catholic. It listed everything that they disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church. Here are three things that were written in the National Covenant that would destroy the legitimacy of the Catholic Church:
The mass was wrong,
The Pope was the anti-Christ, and
In the Eucharists, the Catholics insist that the priests turn the wine into the ACTUAL blood of Jesus the Christ and the bread into the ACTUAL flesh of Jesus the Christ.
King Charles I, pro-Catholic, battled the Protestant forces in both countries. But Charles I was defeated. [Now, does any voter in the USA today care about the religion of any candidate?]
After the Monarchy was restored (after 11 years) in 1660, his son, Charles II renounced the Covenant, which in 1662 was declared unlawful oaths to be adjured by all persons holding public offices. Thus, the “killing times” began; a period of sustained persecution. Many Presbyterians from Scotland and Protestants from Britain were martyred. Many fled to Ireland, Barbados or to Virginia. The execution of Protestants lasted till James II was made to leave the throne after his son was born. Seven Protestant leaders asked the Jews of the Netherlands to get William of Orange to attack England and become co-regent with his wife, Mary, who was the daughter of James II. This invasion, called the Glorious Revolution of 1688, ended the massive religious murders.
That was one of the reasons that the Stuart Kings were outspoken in saying that they operated under the “divine right of kings.” They didn’t want any man correcting them or criticizing them. That, they said, included the Parliament. They said that they only answered to God. Only God could criticize them.
So, how can you get rid of a terrible king that your ancestors requested when they asked the LORD God to abdicate His throne? Impeach them? Well, in the 1600s you either ousted them or beheaded them or assassinated them. Impeachment was unknown at that time—impeachment of royalty was unknown. Israel was stuck with their Royalty, until the King of Kings takes back the throne of David, even though they were a Republic for 11 years.
WHAT HAPPENED IN KING DAVID’S LIFE?
But what about David, the King of Israel? Did he have a man that criticized what he had done? Yes. Nathan the Prophet was one example. Nathan pointed out to David that he was guilty in the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. He didn’t kill her husband directly, but he had him killed by his military orders. David, at first, was greatly offended; but later came around and thanked Nathan for telling him his great sin. David was criticized by a man. David didn’t operate under the “divine right of God.” He was the father of all the Kings of Judah and after the smaller of the two kingdoms of Israel were taken captive by the Babylonians, his descendants were to be the Kings over the House of Israel.
This is the throne on which our Messiah will once again rule. Jesus the Christ will once again be the King of Israel.
Luke 1:32, 33:
32) “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33) And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
David refused to murder the LORD’s anointed—King Saul, even though David had already been anointed as the next king. He was given the great opportunity—he was given the chance with just the two of them alone in a cave. King Saul went to sleep, not knowing the David was hiding behind the rock that the king was sleeping in front of. His guards were at the front of the cave protecting him. But they didn’t know that David was in the cave and remained hidden. He didn’t come out from his hiding place and kill the king while he was asleep. He waited until the LORD’s anointed had left the cave. David did not kill the King.
But Oliver Cromwell had Charles I, the King of England, (was he the LORD’s anointed?) beheaded.
When David was ousted from his kingship by one of his sons, David didn’t fight against him. He let him become king. He went into exile. The newly crowned king soon was unexpectantly hung while riding in the forest. His long hair became entangled in a tree branch, and he was desaddled from his horse. With his son’s death, David came out of exile and went back to the throne.
After Parliament became the ruler in Britain it was dissolved, Lord Protectors rose up, then political parties, then anarchy, then the Monarchy was restored.
WHAT HAPPENED IN BRITAIN?
Scotland was Presbyterian. England was Anglican. Ireland was Catholic. And there was one king ruling over all three of these countries?
And there were more than these three religions in these three nations too. There were Ana-Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Quakers, Pilgrims, Levellers, Diggers and Ranters, etc. Levellers, Diggers and Ranters. Who were they?
The Ranters were pantheists and antinomians, believing they were not bound by ordinary moral law. They liked to take their clothes off, smoke, drink, and indulge in free love; and they were denounced as being immoral.
[Very similar to our Hippy movement fifty years ago. They were not true Christians as they denied keeping any of His laws.
John 14:15: “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”]
Parliament passed laws in 1650 against them, banning free love and restricting who could preach. Some of their preachers denied that the Bible was God’s Word and claimed that Jesus was no more divine than anybody else.
They got a spike through their tongue for blasphemy. [They wouldn’t get this punishment today!]
Many Ranters eventually became Quakers. Quaker founder George Fox preached in the 1640s gradually gaining followers although his movement had no structure at first. This restoration leader saw a vision on Pendle Hill in Lancashire, England and then went and travelled around England, the Netherlands, and Barbados preaching and teaching with the aim of converting new adherents to his faith. Despite Cromwell’s sympathy, the Quakers faced repeated prosecutions.
The Diggers were extreme Levellers. They were led by Gerrard Winstanley and William Everard. In April 1649 about 20 poor men assembled at St. George’s Hill, Surrey, and began to cultivate the common land. These Diggers held that the English Civil Wars had been fought against the King Charles I and the great landowners; now that the king had been executed, the land should be made available for the very poor to cultivate. The poor have never gotten the land; it has always been either the:
Roman Catholic church,
Usurious banks, or
The numbers of the Diggers more than doubled during 1649. Their activities alarmed the Parliament and roused the hostility of local landowners. The Diggers were harassed by legal actions and mob violence. Fellow farmers came and dug up the Digger’s gardens and put them out of business by the end of March 1650. The Diggers themselves abjured the use of force. The Diggers also called themselves True Levellers, but their communism [before Karl Marx was even born] was denounced by the leaders of the Levellers. [The Diggers were not true Christians either.]
Who were the Levellers? The Levellers were a political movement during the English Civil War (1642–1651) committed to:
Equality before the law, and
The hallmark of Leveller thought was its populism, as shown by its emphasis on equal natural rights, and their practice of reaching the public through pamphlets, petitions and vocal appeals to the crowd.
The Levellers came to prominence at the end of the First English Civil War (1642–1646) and were most influential before the start of the Second Civil War (1648–1649). Leveller views and support were found in the populace of the City of London and in some regiments in the New Model Army. In contrast to the Diggers, the Levellers opposed common ownership, except in cases of mutual agreement of the property owners.
Parliament had become concerned about the activities of the Levellers during the English Civil War. In 1647 the Levellers organized a petition demanding reform. Their political program included:
Voting rights for all adult males,
Everyone is equal,
Complete religious freedom,
An end to the censorship of books and newspapers,
The abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords,
Trial by jury, and
An end to taxation of people earning less than £30 a year and a maximum interest rate of 6%.
Universal suffrage for all males? Everyone is equal? Total religious freedom? Abolition of the monarchy? A maximum interest rate of 6%?
Usury loans? [Sounds like what most Judeo-Christians would agree with.
[But a Christian wouldn’t be a Leveller]
Most of the ideas of the Levellers, Ranters and the Diggers were opposed by the majority of the senior officers in the New Model Army, who represented the interests of property owners. A compromise was eventually agreed that the vote would be granted to all men except alms-takers and servants. Leaders of the Leveller movement were arrested and their pamphlets were burnt in public.
Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, made it very clear that he was very much opposed to the idea that more people should be allowed to vote in elections and that the Levellers posed a serious threat to the upper classes. The New Model Army, frustrated by this lack of agreement, took King Charles I prisoner, and he was taken to Hampton Court Palace. Cromwell visited the king and proposed a deal. He would be willing to restore him as king and the Church of England as the official Church, if Charles I and the Anglicans would agree to grant religious toleration. Charles I rejected Cromwell’s proposals and instead entered into a secret agreement with forces in Scotland who wanted to impose Presbyterianism.
In January 1649, Charles I was charged with “waging war on Parliament.” It was claimed that he was responsible for “all the murders, burnings, damages and mischiefs to the nation” in the English Civil War. The jury included members of Parliament, army officers and large landowners. Some of the 135 people chosen as jurors did not turn up for the trial.
This was the first time in English history that a king had been put on trial. Charles I believed that he was God’s representative on earth (same as the Pope) and therefore no court of law had any right to pass judgement on him. Charles I therefore refused to defend himself against the charges put forward by Parliament. [In today’s world, it would be the same as if the President refused to send his defense team to speak at the Senate to defend him.]
Charles I pointed out that on December 6, 1648, the army had expelled several members of Parliament. Therefore, the king argued, Parliament had no legal authority to arrange his trial. The arguments about the courts legal authority to try Charles I went on for several days. Eventually, on January 27th, Charles I was given his last opportunity to defend himself against the charges. When he refused, he was sentenced to death. His death warrant was signed by the fifty-nine jurors who were in attendance.
On January 30th, 1649, Charles I was taken to a scaffold built outside Whitehall Palace. Charles I wore two shirts as he was worried that if he shivered in the cold people would think he was afraid of dying. He told his servant “were I to shake through cold, my enemies would attribute it to fear.”
When the ancient Israelites asked God to abdicate His throne over the kingdom of Israel (that was kind of arrogant, don’t you think?), what kind of government did our ancestors want? It was what the other nations had—a Monarchy. The LORD God gave them, as His replacement, King Saul. But King Saul lost his position when he failed to be obedient to God’s command to destroy all the Canaanites and their animals. He saved the king’s life and some of the good animals that he had that were to be used for a sacrifice to his God. God told him that his reign was over. He was not obedient to what the LORD had asked him.
God told him that his replacement was a sixteen-year-old shepherd boy. This boy would become the second King of Israel and his descendants would always rule over the kingdom of Judah and after they fell into captivity, the kingdom of the former House of Israel.
Did that command by our God ever change? Did he ever tell the people that they would have a republic or a democracy or a socialistic form of government or even a communistic one? Who did America get its information from in order to come up with ideas to create the new form of government? Was it from the Bible or was it from other writings? John Locke and Algernon Sidney were two of the main writers that the founding fathers regularly followed.
Let’s read a small portion from a Leveller pamphlet written by Henry Robinson in March 24, 1644. The pamphlet was called, Liberty of Conscience: Or the Sole means to obtaine Peace and Truth.
“I presume no Protestant will deny, but that we are bound to endeavor the conversion of Papists, Jewes, Turkes, Pagans, Hereticks, with all Infidels & misbeleevers unto the only true and saving faith in Jesus Christ, this taske how little so ever it be practiced and thought on, will one day lye heavy upon all Christians, who are no lesse obliged thereto in their respective calling, than the Apostles were to preach the Gospel unto all Nations, as was said immediately before:….” oil.libertyfund.org/pagesleveller-conference1
The yellow highlight shows that this Leveller believed Mark 16:15 and ignored other scriptures like Matthew 15:24. They were the universalists that is so common today. So, he believed that the apostles were to be sent to all the nations in the world.
But this quote taken from the book of Mark, if not interpreted by other quotes of Jesus, creates an oxymoron because it makes Jesus say one thing one time and another thing another time. It says that no Protestant will deny, that we are bound to work for the conversion of Roman Catholics, anti-Christs, Turks, Pagans, Heretics, with all infidels and misbelievers.
It is very similar to what the defense team did in the impeachment trial. They said in one of their arguments that “The House didn’t tell you about that. Why not?” It shows that any sort of narrative can be made up if it is isolated from the context and timeline. The same is true of the Bible and what it means by what it says.
For example, the Levellers used…
Mark 16:15: “And He [Jesus] said unto them [eleven disciples], Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
But they didn’t tell you about this next verse. Why not?
Matthew 15:24: “But He [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
To keep harmony in Scripture, Mark 16:15 must be interpreted with Matthew 15:24.
Mark 16:15 and Matthew 15:24:
Mark 16:15 in bold type and Matthew 15:24 in yellow highlight in the [brackets].
15 and 24: “Go ye into all the world [Israel was scattered into all the world], and preach the gospel to every creature [I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel].”
In the beginning God created one in His own image who blushed red. Out of Adam-man whom He created, He chose the seed of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. It was to the seed of Jacob (Israel), that He implanted His Word:
Psalm 147:19, 20:
19) “He sheweth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and judgments unto Israel.
20) He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
These two verses say, without a doubt, that God showed His WORD unto Israel only. He didn’t show it to any other nation. He didn’t show it to the Canaanites, the Edomites, the Egyptians, the Turks, the Indians, etc. He only showed His statutes and judgement unto Israel.
And to these people, to whom He showed His statutes and judgments exclusively, God said:
Deuteronomy 7:6: “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
Who does the LORD of the Bible say that He chose to be a special people unto Himself? And what else does He say about these people?
Exodus 29:45: “And I [God] will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.”
The God of the Bible will dwell among the children of Israel and He will be their God. Nowhere in the 66 books of the Bible does it say that God will dwell with anyone else and will be their God.
Why is this? Other individuals are not made in God’s image. They are not sheep. They cannot hear the Word of God. And what happens when a sheep has sexual relations with a wolf?
Psalm 106:35, 36:
35) “But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.
36) And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.”
Missions to kinsmen are commanded and commended. Missions to racial strangers are forbidden. We believe this and make no effort to persuade any racial stranger, because according to the Scriptures:
25) “Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.
26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27) My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;”
We obey the WORD and exclude racial strangers. We do what we do because:
I Kings 8:53: “For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers our of Egypt, O Lord GOD.”
Scotland was Presbyterian; England was Anglican/Protestant; Ireland was Catholic, and all three nations had other groups on the fringe. The Presbyterians made a covenant between them and God that they signed. Their king also signed it. But then he became the King of England and he renounced the covenant that he had previously signed and made it against the law. And then the trouble really began.
The Jews got to reenter the nation of God’s covenant people after almost 400 years. They are now in our Senate, House, Governor’s Mansion, Supreme Court and in the Executive branch. They are a snare and they have got us to worship their gods.
Name one other nation that ever camped like this. Come quickly LORD Jesus and retake the throne of Israel once again.
To be continued.
Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.