Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.

[amigo de christo]

Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Lk 3:14

Nothing about pacifism.

Now before one tries to accuse me of being a military hater
Just know and understand that many , many years ago
I once was USMC . in anti terroism and later into the infantry where i did carry my M two O three .
BUT NOW my kin gdom is above , my weapons spiritual
as i am now in a whole nother military , THE soliders OF GOD all mighty , not of men .

 

[HealthyShape]

its in another gospel .
It sure does say DO violence to no man .

Only in the KJV. As is frequent, people do not understand the language of the KJV and come with wrong ideas.

 

[amigo de christo]

Only in the KJV. As is frequent, people do not understand the language of the KJV and come with wrong ideas.

MY friend if that is and be your response to me , THEN know and understand you have well lost this debate .
I see they got you too . Probably into the greek stuff , probably into certain newer versions
or is it the jewish movment maybe .
NO THANKS . This sheep gonna stick to the KJV . men sure love to change things my friend
and if they cant get one outta the bible , WELL by golly just greek it up a bit and twist it
OR as you do just say OH THAT is a bad translation . These ears will not heed or hear such things .

 

[HealthyShape]

MY friend if that is and be your response to me , THEN know and understand you have well lost this debate .
I see they got you too . Probably into the greek stuff , probably into certain newer versions
or is it the jewish movment maybe .
NO THANKS . This sheep gonna stick to the KJV . men sure love to change things my friend
and if they cant get one outta the bible , WELL by golly just greek it up a bit and twist it
OR as you do just say OH THAT is a bad translation . These ears will not heed or hear such things .

I am not interested in the "KJV only" debate, it is a fringe cult and the KJV Onlyists will not accept any proof that the KJV contains errors or language that means something different today than in the 17th century.

 

[soberxp]

Only in the KJV. As is frequent, people do not understand the language of the KJV and come with wrong ideas.

God uses the weaknesses not the violence of man,
Even the disciples once fled in fear from Roman soldiers, yet when their weakness was transformed into strength, they feared no violence. Instead, they obeyed the teaching of Jesus Christ, took up their own crosses, and fought not with violence, but as Jesus Christ did.

 

[Lizbeth]

I've noticed that everyone who claims they "walk in the Spirit" struggles to express their thoughts clearly. In fact, you simply can't formulate your ideas in a coherent, logical, and articulate way.

By contrast, I find it easy to express my thoughts and state my position clearly—no sophistry, just straightforward, precise, and to the point.

Maybe you simply can't hear/understand.

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Mat 13:10-15

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[marks]

I would do everything in my power—provided it doesn’t endanger my family or loved ones—to ensure the criminal ends up in a cell with plenty of time to reflect on what he’s done.

But! If the criminal threatens my family or loved ones, I will do everything to protect them.

No! I will not sacrifice my wife or my children just to give a criminal more time to commit crimes, hoping that—somehow, someday—he’ll repent while facing no consequences.

Me too.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Brief plot:
A young merchant named Julius, living in 3rd-century Antioch, renounces wealth, power, and even family to live by what he calls “Christ’s law.”
He preaches absolute non-resistance to evil, love for all without distinction, and refusal to judge or use force.
In the end, robbers kill him, and he blesses them to the last breath and dies smiling.

I've not been able to find anything authenticating your claim of the changed ending, could you point me to something? What I've been reading seems to rely on the ending I know.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I've noticed that everyone who claims they "walk in the Spirit" struggles to express their thoughts clearly. In fact, you simply can't formulate your ideas in a coherent, logical, and articulate way.

There's a difference between the speaker not explaining clearly and the hearer not understanding. Your assertion that they speaker is not being clear is just as meaningful as another saying you don't understand.

I find "reflective listening" to be very useful in such cases. You may benefit from trying this.

Much love!

 

[Chrysostomos]

Me too.

Much love!

There's a difference between the speaker not explaining clearly and the hearer not understanding. Your assertion that they speaker is not being clear is just as meaningful as another saying you don't understand.

I find "reflective listening" to be very useful in such cases. You may benefit from trying this.

Much love!

I'm afraid you'll get offended too. And then someone will inevitably write: “It's not 'walking in the spirit' to mock and disparage brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Nevertheless, I don’t know how to say this any softer.
When I talk to you —though not only you, but it's especially clear here—I get the impression I'm conversing with a schizophrenic.
I understand you're all “walking in the spirit” and find it hard to reason logically or follow context. So I'll explain in as much detail as possible.

The core issue: I asked: Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.

Both @Lizbeth and @Big Boy Johnson answered yes.

@Big Boy Johnson justified it with Galatians 6:10—“do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith”—as if “all men” means we must materially or politically enable the wicked while they persist in hating God.
@Lizbeth reinforced it with the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) and repeatedly claimed “the Lord opened this verse to me… we need the mind of the Spirit, the mind of Christ,” implying the Holy Spirit endorses aiding or loving those who reject Christ and deny His sacrifice.

Later, I pointed out this matches Tolstoyism heresy (Leo Tolstoy): rejects judgment, rejects resisting evil, preaches unconditional love to all without repentance and absolute pacifism.
His teachings were condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church in the Holy Synod’s Decree of February 20–22, 1901 (Old Style).
After that, Lizbeth accused me of being “unspiritual.” As if rejecting Tolstoyism means I'm “unspiritual.”
I replied that this isn’t just my position—it’s the Orthodox Church’s position. So they’re accusing the entire Orthodox Church of being unspiritual.
This was ignored, and she started collecting Bible verses about “unspirituality.” For example, her latest post #406.

Then you jumped in and linked the English translation of “Walk in the Light While There Is Light”.

I responded:
Yes! This novella is a direct illustration of the very heresy of “unconditional love for all” that Vladimir Solovyov exposes in Three Conversations.
Tolstoy doesn’t just promote it—he makes it the central idea, wrapped in the form of a Christian “hagiography,” which makes it especially perilous.
Tolstoy sells the heresy of “love everyone, never resist” as a saint’s life. Julius drops everything, preaches: don’t judge, don’t defend, don’t call the cops, don’t go to court. Even self-defense is evil. Army — evil. State — evil. Robbers butcher him — he goes: “Brother, I love you.” Dies smiling.
Now reality check:
Ever called the police?
Ever sued for your rights?
Would you protect your wife, kids from a rapist?
Would you hand your daughter to a killer, like Delarue in Solovyov’s parody?
Ready to watch your family get slaughtered — and “not resist”?

After that, you and @soberxp started defending Tolstoy as right.

Specifically, you asked me:

Do you know . . . love, in Scripture, is not just some fuzzy warm feeling, it's action, to commit yourself to the wellbeing of others.

Would you sacrifice your life to save the life of someone who had just stolen from you or beaten you or whatever, in the hope that in doing so you may give them opportunity to repent? Or would you allow them to die, knowing that they do not know Jesus?

I answered:
I would do everything in my power—provided it doesn’t endanger my family or loved ones—to ensure the criminal ends up in a cell with plenty of time to reflect on what he’s done.
But! If the criminal threatens my family or loved ones, I will do everything to protect them.
No! I will not sacrifice my wife or my children just to give a criminal more time to commit crimes, hoping that—somehow, someday—he’ll repent while facing no consequences.

You replied: “Me too.”
I took that as agreement that Tolstoyism is heresy.
But now you write this post I’m replying to—claiming I don’t understand Lizbeth and soberxp, and it’s my fault.
Yet you just agreed with me above. Which directly confirms Tolstoyism is heresy.

So now, by Lizbeth and soberxp’s logic, you are also “unspiritual” and don’t understand what they’re saying.
Or are you switching masks again and now defending Tolstoyism?
How am I supposed to understand you?
There’s no consistent logic in your words. No backbone. No integrity of mind
One moment you say one thing, the next—the opposite. Then it flips again.
It feels like I’m talking to a schizophrenic.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Maybe you simply can't hear/understand.

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Mat 13:10-15

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Do you even understand why and for what purpose you're writing all this?

 

[amigo de christo]

I am not interested in the "KJV only" debate, it is a fringe cult and the KJV Onlyists will not accept any proof that the KJV contains errors or language that means something different today than in the 17th century.

I never said KJV only
YOU came after the KJV . DO KEEP and do bear that in mind .

 

[HealthyShape]

I never said KJV only
YOU came after the KJV . DO KEEP and do bear that in mind .

You said:

THEN know and understand you have well lost this debate .
I see they got you too . Probably into the greek stuff , probably into certain newer versions
or is it the jewish movment maybe .
NO THANKS . This sheep gonna stick to the KJV

For the practical purposes in this conversation, your vocabulary, paranoia and aversion to "the greek (sic) stuff" etc is not different from the KJV onlyism. You do not care if the KJV is right or if you even understand the English in there, you just "stick" to it no matter what.

So, do not try to water it down or to throw it on me.

 

[shepherdsword]

In 2 Chronicles 19:1–3, we find the account of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, rebuked by the prophet Jehu, son of Hanani, for his alliance with Ahab, the wicked king of Israel. Jehoshaphat joined Ahab in a military campaign against Ramoth-Gilead (2 Chron. 18:1–3), despite Ahab’s idolatry, including his worship of Baal (1 Kings 16:31–33), which led Israel into apostasy. The prophet Jehu confronted Jehoshaphat directly:

“Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, returned safely to his house in Jerusalem. And Jehu the son of Hanani, the seer, went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord. Nevertheless, there are good things found in you, for you have removed the idols from the land of Judah and have set your heart to seek God’” (2 Chron. 19:1–3, NKJV).

This episode reveals that supporting a wicked Israel, embodied by Ahab, who “hated the Lord” through idolatry, provoked God’s anger. Though righteous, Jehoshaphat erred by allying with God’s enemy. This scriptural example clearly shows that supporting those who oppose God is sinful, even if it appears politically justified.

The modern state of Israel, established in 1948, is a secular nation where most citizens do not adhere to strict religious traditions. However, ultra-Orthodox Jews, a significant minority, openly reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Numerous documented incidents show ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians in public, spitting as they pass Christian churches, or when they see crucifixes. These acts are captured in countless videos available online and corroborated by eyewitness accounts in Israeli and international media.

Moreover, some Israelis and religious groups actively push for the construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. According to Scripture, this Temple will become the seat of the Antichrist:

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4, NKJV).

Supporting the construction of a Third Temple, where the Antichrist will reign according to prophecy, directly contradicts Christian teaching, as it seeks to restore Old Testament rituals that deny Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.

Questions for Christian Zionists: Why Support the Third Temple?

Christian Zionists, influenced by John Nelson Darby’s dispensationalism, fervently support the state of Israel and the idea of building a Third Temple. But why? Do they believe that Christ’s Second Coming will occur in the Third Temple, and that the Jews, who rejected Him as the Messiah, will suddenly recognize Jesus as the same Messiah they crucified, accepting Him this time instead of crucifying Him again? How can they reconcile their faith in Jesus as Savior with supporting a project tied to the Antichrist, who “sits as God in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4)? Their actions raise serious questions: Are they following Christ or succumbing to manipulations disguised as prophecy?

Do you goose step as you chant "Heil Hitler" ?

 

[amigo de christo]

You said:

THEN know and understand you have well lost this debate .
I see they got you too . Probably into the greek stuff , probably into certain newer versions
or is it the jewish movment maybe .
NO THANKS . This sheep gonna stick to the KJV

For the practical purposes in this conversation, your vocabulary, paranoia and aversion to "the greek (sic) stuff" etc is not different from the KJV onlyism. You do not care if the KJV is right or if you even understand the English in there, you just "stick" to it no matter what.

So, do not try to water it down or to throw it on me.

Yeah i did say that . I am sticking to the KJV .
I have also read much of the geneva and its okay too .
The older versions , AT LEAST the ones i have read , SEEM to agree .
Its SOME of the newer ones that seem to contradict SOME things .
And i advise all TO burn the message , that is one messed up version . real bad that one is .

 

[amigo de christo]

Do you goose step as you chant "Heil Hitler" ?

many goose step as they chant HEIL biden or HEIL t rump
or heil the pope , or heil the nar realm .
having no idea where all these folks are leading them . AND IT DARN SURE AINT TO GOD , TO TRUTH .
its to the mother of all harlots , to the lie , to the lie of interfaith and finding common ground .
SO let us beware my friend . THERE IS NO HOPE in men . BUT HOPE ALL DAY WE CAN IN GOD
IN HIS WORDS , IN CHRIST . bible time everyone . BIBLE time .

 

[HealthyShape]

Yeah i did say that . I am sticking to the KJV .
I have also read much of the geneva and its okay too .
The older versions , AT LEAST the ones i have read , SEEM to agree .
Its SOME of the newer ones that seem to contradict SOME things .
And i advise all TO burn the message , that is one messed up version . real bad that one is .

Are you writing your posts on some old mobile phone or why are your posts formatted so poorly?

 

[amigo de christo]

You said:

THEN know and understand you have well lost this debate .
I see they got you too . Probably into the greek stuff , probably into certain newer versions
or is it the jewish movment maybe .
NO THANKS . This sheep gonna stick to the KJV

For the practical purposes in this conversation, your vocabulary, paranoia and aversion to "the greek (sic) stuff" etc is not different from the KJV onlyism. You do not care if the KJV is right or if you even understand the English in there, you just "stick" to it no matter what.

So, do not try to water it down or to throw it on me.

Its all on you my friend .
Soon enough you all will merge ,
And when the lie cloaked as love has run it course and filled this people to the the lie
Then will come the scourge against the true sheep who conformed not .
But do not pull out a handkerchief and wipe tears for me .
DO not weep for me my friend . WEEP for the all inclusive ecumincal interfaithers finding common ground .
FOR if the true sheep can be tormented by men , as they have throughout all times .
IF true sheep can even be lit on fire and burned alive
beheaded , put in prison and etc
WHAT DO YOU THINK is gonna happen to the DRY tree of ecumincal HALOTRY .
WEEP FOR THEM . f ar worse a punishment for them .

 

[amigo de christo]

Are you writing your posts on some old mobile phone or why are your posts formatted so poorly?

Its just the way i type . I would not concern myself too much with how i type .
Rather lets do a nose dive into the bible for our selves .

 

[marks]

I'm afraid you'll get offended too.

No need to be. I'm not at all easily offended. Though I've been known to point to comments I think are inappropriate, but not to express offense, just to try and bring discussion to a higher level.

And then someone will inevitably write: “It's not 'walking in the spirit' to mock and disparage brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Walking in the Spirit is taught to us that we will be as God describes here:

Galatians 5:22-24 KJV
22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Patience, gentleness, meekness, self-control, this is what the person who is walking in the Spirit will show.

Nevertheless, I don’t know how to say this any softer.
When I talk to you —though not only you, but it's especially clear here—I get the impression I'm conversing with a schizophrenic.

I woudn't know why that would be.

I understand you're all “walking in the spirit” and find it hard to reason logically or follow context. So I'll explain in as much detail as possible.

Personally I think that the one who is walking in the Spirit will find greater understanding, not less.

The core issue: I asked: Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.

Help them do wickedness? Or help them to stop doing wickedness? Love them for their evil, or love them as the Lord loves,

Matthew 5:44-48 KJV
44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Doing good to all men, regardless of who they are. God gives rain and sun to the just and unjust, and continuing to provide the unjust with food in this way allows them to continue in their evil. But God doesn't leave it there, He condemns their evil, and has sent Jesus to save even them also, if they will repent and believe.

Both @Lizbeth and @Big Boy Johnson answered yes.

I'm not planning to speak for them.

Then you jumped in and linked the English translation of “Walk in the Light While There Is Light”.

I responded:
Yes! This novella is a direct illustration of the very heresy of “unconditional love for all” that Vladimir Solovyov exposes in Three Conversations.
Tolstoy doesn’t just promote it—he makes it the central idea, wrapped in the form of a Christian “hagiography,” which makes it especially perilous.
Tolstoy sells the heresy of “love everyone, never resist” as a saint’s life. Julius drops everything, preaches: don’t judge, don’t defend, don’t call the cops, don’t go to court. Even self-defense is evil. Army — evil. State — evil. Robbers butcher him — he goes: “Brother, I love you.” Dies smiling.
Now reality check:
Ever called the police?
Ever sued for your rights?
Would you protect your wife, kids from a rapist?
Would you hand your daughter to a killer, like Delarue in Solovyov’s parody?
Ready to watch your family get slaughtered — and “not resist”?

I of course have based my comments on the book I read, the English translation. I've not been able to find any reference to a different "original ending", can you point me to something?

Regardless, I'm assuming what you have said is true, unless I find otherwise, that the ending was changed. But I'm not speaking towards the ending I haven't read.

So I'm fine leaving Tolstoy out of this, and focusing on what the Bible says.

After that, you and @soberxp started defending Tolstoy as right.

Specifically, you asked me:

I answered:
I would do everything in my power—provided it doesn’t endanger my family or loved ones—to ensure the criminal ends up in a cell with plenty of time to reflect on what he’s done.
But! If the criminal threatens my family or loved ones, I will do everything to protect them.
No! I will not sacrifice my wife or my children just to give a criminal more time to commit crimes, hoping that—somehow, someday—he’ll repent while facing no consequences.

You replied: “Me too.”
I took that as agreement that Tolstoyism is heresy.

I've not read the ending upon which you've based your assertions.

At the end of the day, I believe this depends on the particular situation, and how the Holy Spirit is leading us in that moment.

We have examples in the Bible, just looking at Paul for a moment, he both accepted abuse, and alternatively demanded his rights as a Roman citizen. I believe that there is place for both.

But now you write this post I’m replying to—claiming I don’t understand Lizbeth and soberxp, and it’s my fault.

I didn't mean it to be pointed solely at you, just to say, that one speaks and another doesn't understand, rather than try to say, "it's you who is not speaking clearly", which takes an accusatory stance, my suggestion is to use "reflective listening" to gain that understanding. Rather than just point a finger, seek to remedy the situation with proactive responses designed to elicit clarification.

Yet you just agreed with me above. Which directly confirms Tolstoyism is heresy.

I'll say again that I think there is a time and place for different responses depending on the particular circumstance, and the Lord's leading.

So now, by Lizbeth and soberxp’s logic, you are also “unspiritual” and don’t understand what they’re saying.
Or are you switching masks again and now defending Tolstoyism?
How am I supposed to understand you?

I hope you understand me better now. Do you?

There’s no consistent logic in your words. No backbone. No integrity of mind
One moment you say one thing, the next—the opposite. Then it flips again.
It feels like I’m talking to a schizophrenic.

Much love!