RIGHT - Adult males don't need to be circumcised... I agree, and so does the Torah.
It is a direct reference to scripture: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Right - a direct quote of scripture taken out of context. The context is past tense and is only an account of the original problem - Not the conclusion. And as I have already transmitted several times, circumcision of adults is not called for in the Torah. It is not a law of Moses. It is a takanot of the Pharisees.
Note, that you apparently believe that we should both be circumcized and keep the law.
I believe that an adult is not so obligated. I believe that the Torah is for every one, and that the prophets declare that final end. And SO, an infant male is to be circumcised upon the eighth day.
Hence Paul declares, as you delicately put it, snipping the flesh off your you-know-what does not profit you, and to do so is to put yourself under law, not under grace:
Gal_5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Well then I have no part in Messiah, as I was circumcised by my parents - a circumstance I had no control over - So by your reckoning I must keep the whole law... And the Jews, to whom the covenant was given in the first place also have no part in Messiah - Don't be so silly. In fact, most of Christendom is circumcised to this very day... And what an extreme bias toward women... They don't have to worry about circumcision at all! That's not fair! What now?
You say partial, because, though the Jews invented a concept of a Noachide law in their tradition, they also teach that Gentiles are not bound to keeping the ceremonial ordinances of the law, but the seven precepts in their speculated covenant only.
As I already showed you, the Noachide covenant is in the Bible. And it has always been the starting point for Judaism. I keep no Jewish tradition.
IOW, you go beyond even the Jews. You seize upon their tradition, and then make more of their tradition than there is.
I take it you never even read the passage from the Torah. If you care to study the matter, the points of Noachide are contained in commandments given IN THE BIBLE through the Edenic, Adamic, and Noachide covenants and to include those commandments up to the Abrahamic covenant. It is no Jewish tradition, regardless of what Gill may say -It is Biblical.
And as you confess yourself, your argument is entirely by silence.
So is yours - Your claim of Torah is not in the Torah. It is in the Talmud. Yeshua said to keep Torah. Paul said to keep Torah, John said to keep Torah...
He would only be a hypocrite if he made it a matter of religious obligation to do it, rather than something indifferent, which he did in order to better preach to the Jews, not because he believed any were required to do it. Hence he had Titus circumcised, not because Jesus was circumcised, but because they were going to work with the Jews:
So a vow before YHWH is not required to be kept? WOW. And feigned religiosity is a basis for evangelism? *shakes head*.
And thus, everytime he went to preach on the Sabbath, he was not preaching to Christian converts, but to the unconverted. But he met and celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Sunday with converts:
Nonsense. Christian myth. ALL Jews keep the Sabbath, and after sunset (the first day of the week), in the evening, they all gather in various houses for pot luck and fellowship as a means to extend the Sabbath. Christians were doing the very same thing - They kept Sabbath and gathered together in the evening for the same purpose. The Gentiles were being taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath,
This is not hypocrisy. It is evangelism.
Sure it is hypocrisy, which is why I think you are reading it wrong. YHWH doesn't like feigned religion.
Only if you ignore the rest of the sentence “end of the law... for righteousness to everyone that believeth.”
Still the same - He is the pinnacle... the singular example of righteousness. A disciple emulates his master.
There is no righteousness in not eating Pork. Righteousness is received through faith, imputed onto us by the perfect of Christ, who already fulfilled the law.
Aggain, the focus is not righteousness. That is not what Torah is for. The focus is obedience because we love YHWH.
Hence why we, who are sinners, are saved not by our works, but by grace, and why we need not be circumcised, or keep any of the ceremonial laws, since Christ has cleaned us already.
'ceremonial laws' is a Christian construction. There is no such division. And there you go again about 'saved by works'. I guess I will have to keep telling you that there is no one saved by works. AGAIN, that is not what the Torah is for. It is about obedience because we love YHWH.
So it follows then, that I may break the Sabbath, touch lepers, touch the dead or the things the dead have touched, and eat whatever I like, as Christ declared:
1) The Apostles were righteous to break the Sabbath day, though the same act was refused in Exodus, on the grounds that the Priests who were about the work of God, though they profane the Sabbath, are guiltless; ‘and there is one greater than the Temple here.’
Your flat wrong - the disciples were not breaking Torah, nor would Yeshua encourage breaking Torah.
2) The dietary laws, which declare that a man is made unclean by what he eats, are undone, since “whatsoever entereth into a man does not defile him,” only that which leaves the man, from the depths of his heart, defiles him.
Dietary laws do not declare a man spiritually defiled. They declare THE MEAT unclean. They have to do with physical health and what is good for the physical body. That has not changed one iota. In fact, maybe it has... With all the pollutants present today, it has perhaps become more critical... Swine retain the toxins they eat, as do bottom feeders and filter feeders..Predators have primary exposure, as do scavangers... Hmmm.. mebbe YHWH knows what He is talking about....
3) Christ touched lepers, the dead, and many other sick besides, all of which would have made Him unclean, yet Christ, who is Cleanliness Himself, cleaned them to the marrow.
Again, the Torah does not make lepers spiritually defiled - They are unclean physically because their bodies harbor a communicable disease. They are quarantined. Nor is one who touches them spiritually defiled - They are physically unclean, again for fear of communicable disease.
If I should follow Christ’s example, then I would not be under the law at all, but under Him only.
Right. Yeshua is the very embodiment of Torah. If you are under Yeshua, you are under Torah.
To say that Paul’s revelations are merely “private,” is to put them on a lesser stand than Christ’s. But Christ’s Gospel and his are one in the same, and all of this accorded the same name as “scripture,” making it divine and infallible:
You misunderstand. Yeshua, standing as the Great Prophet, declared publicly the will of YHWH. That requires very specific rules to be engaged.His words must be judged by the Torah and the Prophets for their veracity. So your declarations that he changed Torah or encouraged his disciples to do so does him damage, as if he does not align with both the Torah and the prophets (doing no damage), He must needfully be a false prophet.
Likewise Paul, who also stands as a prophet and as a disciple of Yeshua - His is a triple-threat. For he not only has to do no harm to both the Torah and the Prophets, but he must also align with the words of his master, else he too would be a false prophet and/or false disciple.
I can guess that means nothing to you, two thousand years removed and carrying standard Christian biases. But on the ground, at the time, with a Hebrew sense, that structure is an utter necessity, and cannot be broken. You declare (rightly) that Paul preaches the same Gospel as Yeshua - But if that is indeed true, and Yeshua endorsed the Torah and the Prophets (as He did, and had to, in order to be true), Then Paul cannot come with a private revelation which calls the Torah the 'doctrine of demons' and also changes the words of his master, because then it is not the same Gospel as Yeshua, and it breaks the Torah and the Prophets. That cannot be so.
Needfully, Yeshua must be interpreted with the Torah and the Prophets. His work cannot break either one.
The same with Paul, with the extension that he must also be judged against his Master, as he cannot break any.
So while you are right to quote 2Ti_3:16, you fail to admit the structures within that: The Torah is the touchstone... The ruleset... The programmatic governor. Since YHWH said it is unchangeable and eternal, it must_be_true. It is the established method of measurement. That is why it cannot be changed.
The Torah governs the Prophets - It is the measurement which the prophets are measured by. And the Prophets also measure future prophets - The Word of YHWH cannot be broken, so a future prophet cannot change what the former prophet has said.
So the Torah necessarily holds primacy, with the Prophecy a close second in judging what is said/established in the future.
Likewise, since the New Testament is the definitive tradition of the Great Rabbi, the words of the Rabbi necessarily hold more weight than the tradition which follows, as that tradition is, by it's nature, the emulation and preservation of those words. The disciple cannot change the words of his master.
Recognizing this structural design does no harm to any - it is all Scripture. But it does provide severe limits in interpretation, something that hop-along verse-slingers detest with a passion. Without it, the Word can be made to say anything. With it, A singular Word emerges - It is no longer what it can say, but rather, it is limited by what it can't say. That is what a mechanical governor does - it limits.
And finally, at the time of the writing of the NT, the 'Scriptures' were the Tanakh - The NT having not been written yet. So the definitions and concepts promoted in the NT with the weight of 'Scripture' must necessarily be defined by the Tanakh. In that, one must find the things established in the NT according to the Tanakh - Every office, every purpose, every rite and ritual is contained therein, and defy the pagan definitions which Christianity has encumbered itself with.
As an example, the term 'fullness of the Gentiles' has a very specific and targeted meaning which can be found in the Torah. It is a prophetic term, and an identifying term. It names someone with specificity. It does not mean the 'full number of the Gentiles' as standard Christianity would have it. Not knowing, one cannot fully see what is written plainly in the text.
[roamer_1:] Right - but as John says, if we love him we will keep His commandments
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
Funny thing about that word 'believe'... The Hebrew sense of the word is something like 'Hear and Do'. Kinda changes how that reads, don't it?
Notice that you ignore Paul’s statement that the reason we should not let anyone judge us is because these things are “shadows”, and Christ is the body.
Paul is not saying “yes, embrace the shadows, for you are under their dominion,” but rather that the shadows no longer matter at all, as those who mingle in shadows, and those who do not, are entirely equal in their position, provided they do not try to compel it upon any other, and do so for the glory of God, and not for their own salvation:
Likewise, notice that you ignore Pauls declaration that those shadows are of good things to come - The Holy Days are prophetic. That is their purpose. Moedim has the sense of 'rehearsals'. They are rehearsals for appointed times (appointments). They are not about any dominion. And Paul cannot be saying 'Don't pay attention to the rehearsals'... Because the rehearsals are there to guide us when the appointment happens... And like with the Spring Feasts, which Yeshua performed with an amazing exactitude, when the Fall Feasts are fulfilled, They will happen precisely upon those Holy Days, with an amazing precision.
In that vein, Paul states:
1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Why is it that they will not be overtaken? Because they know the times and seasons... The Moedim.
Apparently you do, as I eat all that, even right now, and you tell me that I am wrong to do so.
I am not about judgement - it is way above my pay grade, as I have said before...
But you miss a larger point:
[1Ti 4:3-5...] The word “meats” is Broma, in reference to foods either allowed or forbidden in Jewish law. Note Strong’s Lexicon:
bro’-mah From the base of G977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbiden by the Jewish law: - meat, victuals.
The literal translation of broma is 'that which is to be eaten', so the selection of that word literally narrows the selection to Torah kosher.
And it is this same food which is then sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If the food was already allowed, and therefore clean, why then would it need to be received and sanctified? And if the food is unclean, what can remain unclean after having been sanctified by God? Therefore, the interpretation is, Paul is speaking of unclean foods according to Jewish law, which are then made clean, provided it is received with thanksgiving.
It is silly to say that. What is not physically good for you to eat remains physically the same. You miss the larger point that Torah never said a man was unclean by what he eats - rather that the meat is not fit to eat. 'It will be unclean to you...'
It does not follow that to obey the commandments “in the spirit” is the same thing as “the letter thereof.” The two are directly put against each other, and circumcision is placed in the heart, and not in the flesh at all.
Of course, but there must be a resemblance, or the law would have been without purpose. The 'letter' would be the insistence of men which quickly becomes a tradition - The Jewish tradition is the culmination of 'the letter'. But the Torah must surely contain the 'spirit' - That is why Torah means 'instruction'.
The circumcision of the heart has always been the point. that is not of 'New Testament ' origin... It is in the Torah.
The interpretation then is, that the law should be applied spiritually, not carnally. Hence we celebrate the passover, not carnally, but in “sincerity and truth”:
Good intentions aside, I don't think YHWH intended the passover to be a celebration of Ishtar's Day, with a feast primarily centered around swine. And isn't it an oddity how the actual passover, which YHWH defined and purposed, already resounds with the meaning of the day. Why cannot man celebrate THAT with sincerity and truth?
1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
RIGHT. KEEP THE FEAST. Observe the Holy Day as it was meant to be. Understand what unleavened bread represents.
I don’t know what you are referring to. If you mean that I am an enemy to the early Christians, like Ignatius, Polycarp, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc, you would be very wrong.
I mean do not put much stock in the face value of the church fathers, as those who kept the record are not noted for accuracy in transmittal. There are no early extant copies, all being after the rise of the Roman church, an edifice noted for inclusions and forgeries, and having a penchant toward edifying itself...
Which does not explain the meaning of the phrases “Do you, as a Jew, livest as a Gentile... why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
This has to do with the way people are living, not merely separating. Since if Peter separates from the Gentiles, how does he still “live” like them, when separated?
I don't think you have a grasp of how intricately the Pharisaical law permeated Jewish society (as it still does today). There is a law for absolutely EVERYTHING, to include even a proper method to put on one's shoes: Right sock, left sock, THEN right shoe, left shoe, THEN tie right shoe, then left shoe... THAT is living like a Jew, and it is most certainly *not* Torah.
And furthermore, just upthread you said Paul was doing this very same thing - Being a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles... Why is it that Paul can do so and not Peter?
One cannot keep Kosher when receiving and eating whatever is given to you, asking “no questions.”
ahh, so I HAVE TO eat anything put infront of me, no matter how vomitous? THAT is liberty? Again, you don't understand the difference between Jewish kosher and Torah kosher. If I am served a beef casserole, I don't have to worry if milk is in the mix... I don't have to worry if the meat came from a part of the cow where the tail could reach... I don't have to worry about separate dishes and pots and pans for the preparation. NONE of that is Torah.
But I won't eat blood sausage or haggis (thank YHWH for the excuse!). If I am at a dinner and they are serving pork loin, I will simply eat everything other than the pork loin... No problem.
The Old Testament does not call them “lawful,” but makes them unlawful, and the person eating of them, or of touching lepers and the like, worthy of being cut off.
No, it doesn't. Not in the sense of spiritual defilement.
The expedience is not defined on a “health” or spiritual cleanliness basis, but on the basis of “conscience,” and not our own, but of the person giving you the food.
Right - Don't make it a big deal... Don't be affronted because someone is serving/eating what is not kosher.
That’s the point, at least when it comes to food and other laws. We have the license to eat “all things,” and even receive the praise of God for it, for ‘God has received him,” as Paul puts it in other places.
Oh, so even the blood, and strangled meat, and meat offered to idols now too... Even that which was specifically and precisely prohibited by the Jerusalem Council has no bearing... I see.... /not
Just because it contradicts your misconceptions doesn’t mean you can ignore Paul. There is no other meaning the verse can have except what he clearly says.
I am not ignoring Paul... I don't agree with you on what he says. Even He contradicts what you say. Nor am I ignoring John. But I will follow Yeshua.
And yet, the hypocrites who teach these foul doctrines would condemn us for actually believing and practicing this statement.
Right. You still don't get that obedience thing, man. I Love YHWH. I believe YHWH. So I endeavor to do what He said is wise to do. Just because I CAN doesn't mean it is good for me.
“RIGHT - Adult males don’t need to be circumcised... I agree, and so does the Torah.”
A stupid statement, as Abraham was in fact circumcised as an adult, the command is given to “you” and not just to his children, and all converts according to the Law of Moses, regardless of age, are to be circumcised:
Exo 12:48 If anyone who isn’t an Israelite wants to celebrate Passover with you, every man and boy in that family must first be circumcised. Then they may join in the meal, just like native Israelites. No uncircumcised man or boy may eat the Passover meal!
“Right - a direct quote of scripture taken out of context. The context is past tense and is only an account of the original problem - Not the conclusion.”
A virtually meaningless statement, as you do not even know what you yourself are saying. If the claim that “of which we gave no such commandment” is the original condition, then you cannot claim, as you have been, that Christians were originally commanded to follow the law of Moses.
“Well then I have no part in Messiah, as I was circumcised by my parents”
You are correct in your statement, but not as to the reason. Since Paul says for them to not be “uncircumcised,” and makes clear that to be circumcised or not makes no difference any longer. You have no part in the Messiah, obviously, for the other reasons specified by Paul.
“I take it you never even read the passage from the Torah.”
You already told me earlier that it is but an “inference,” and is, like everything else, just like your other concession that you argue “from silence.” And, again, you do not even agree with the Jews who invented the concept in their Talmud to begin with.
” Christians were doing the very same thing”
Ignatius, a Christian of the 1st century, died between 95-115AD by being eaten by lions, unwilling to renounce Jesus Christ. Here is what he practiced:
Note the phrase “no longer observing the sabbath”:
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?” (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch.9)
The only group that taught otherwise was the Ebionites, from the 4th century, who were a cult that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.
“I believe that an adult is not so obligated.”
What you believe simply doesn’t matter, as shown already. Also notice that in all your contradictions you give, you do not, under any circumstance, substantiate them with any verifiable facts, nor do you actually reply to anything I actually say, but simply continue barking and belching in my general direction.
“Dietary laws do not declare a man spiritually defiled. They declare THE MEAT unclean. They have to do with physical health and what is good for the physical body.”
The dietary laws aren’t ever depicted as merely being for health reasons, of which it makes no difference whether you eat them or not as a matter of morality or law. This is purely your fantasy, and no scripture ever says anything like this. The truth is, whoever even touches unclean objects, or eats them, is himself made unclean, and abominable, and guilty, according to the law:
Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
The same logic applies to touching those with diseases, or the dead, and other things rendered unclean according to the law, and such is the meaning of the Hebrew word in the first place:
“A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated): - defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.”
“So while you are right to quote 2Ti_3:16, you fail to admit the structures within that:”
You fail to answer my question, but keep talking anyway, as if through much speaking you can get out of it. If the OT speaks of unclean meats, and the NT speaks of unclean meats which are made clean through the sanctification of word of God and prayer, then we must acknowledge that this is true, and that the dietary laws are indeed removed. It doesn’t matter if you, or if any member of any cult, does not like it.
“Kinda changes how that reads, don’t it?”
Not really, as you just made an assertion, and it contradicts your earlier claims that we are not saved by works. Since we may now read the phrase as “these are the commandments... that you are circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
“And finally, at the time of the writing of the NT, the ‘Scriptures’ were the Tanakh - The NT having not been written yet. “
Another claim born from ignorance, as the Apostles believed themselves, and their close associates, scripture-producers:
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.
1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Deuteronomy. Compare:
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
When the Apostles referred to the scripture, therefore, they were referring both to their own writings and teachings as well as the Old Testament.
“Likewise, notice that you ignore Pauls declaration that those shadows are of good things to come - The Holy Days are prophetic.”
Christ is the body that produces the shadow, and the Passover is celebrated whenever we dedicate ourselves to sincerity and truth, and not through actual passover keeping, which is now abolished in favor of the Lord’s Supper, which is celebrated weekly, even every day, not annually.
“The literal translation of broma is ‘that which is to be eaten’, so the selection of that word literally narrows the selection to Torah kosher.”
You’re just making things up as you go along, and it is clear to me you have no idea about anything you are talking about. Not even the Greek Old Testament make such a distinction, but says:
Lev_11:34 Of all meat(broma) which may be eaten,
And uses the word “broma” generally, for any thing that is eaten, whether it is the “meat” for lions, or “deceitful meat,” etc. Even corpses, which is the “food” for carrion eaters:
Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat (Broma) unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.
And thus, “Broma”, being a Greek word, does not just mean “foods that are clean according to Jewish beliefs,” but all foods, whether it is unclean or not, exactly as Strong’s Lexicon declares:
From the base of G0977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:—meat, victuals.
“The circumcision of the heart has always been the point. that is not of ‘New Testament ‘ origin... It is in the Torah.”
Then it follows that to be circumcised physically is still needful, which, obviously, has already been shown to be false. Since all these things, even though Paul entirely spiritualizes them, must still be followed “to the letter.”
“Why is it that Paul can do so and not Peter?”
Why must you trouble me with these stupidities? Paul’s issue with Peter was not that Peter was living as a Gentile. His issue with Peter was that he was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.
“ahh, so I HAVE TO eat anything put infront of me, no matter how vomitous? THAT is liberty? “
More stupidity, as, obviously, if it is “liberty,” you may refrain from eating it. But that you have the liberty to eat or not, is clearly liberty from the dietary laws, which can only give you “nots.”
“Oh, so even the blood, and strangled meat, and meat offered to idols now too... “
That is exactly the point of Paul’s message:
If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
(1Co 10:27-29)
The only time it is prohibited is if it offends the conscience of another, and not our own, as it is our liberty to eat of them or not, since:
1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
And therefore:
1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
“So I endeavor to do what He said is wise to do. Just because I CAN doesn’t mean it is good for me.”
Which only shows how obnoxious your posts are, since you claim to uphold the Old Testament, even while contradicting it, making lite of the dietary laws as if they were optional under the law, and for health reasons.
If this is all you believe, that we are bound to these things only by “health” reasons, then I shall make sure to cook my bacon thoroughly, and will ignore all your rantings and ravings about living like Christ, who is, apparently, only a healthnut.