Sunday, March 28, 2021

The God Culture: Just Another Anti-Trinitarian and Sabbatarian Cult in the Philippines

  Who is The God Culture? What do they teach and believe?


In roughly ten blog posts I have sought to answer those questions. The God Culture now stands naked for all to see. Not only has their "deep research" been exposed as being mere quote mining from the internet with no actual archeological or historical research out in the field whatsoever but their theology has been laid bare of all pretensions and shown to be completely non-Christian. They teach a false history of the Philippines and they teach a false Gospel of legalism whereby one must keep the Mosaic law, specifically the ten commandments and the feasts, to be engrafted into Jesus Christ. There is one other aspect about their theology and teaching which has not been explored and that is their doctrine of the Trinity.

To cut to the chase Timothy Jay Schwab is an anti-trinitarian heretic and The God Culture is just another anti-trinitarian cult in the Philippines. 

The clues have always been there. From Tim's teaching that the way to be ingrafted into Christ is by keeping the Mosaic law to his denigration of the First Council of Nicea as a conspiracy between Constantine and the Bishops to cover up the truth the fact is that this group's real sentiments have been hidden in plain sight. It is not so easy figuring out their doctrine of the Trinity because they don't like to talk about it. They are not keen on doctrine. They are keen on action which is why they are legalists.

I always had my doubts about The God Culture's theology but when I heard Tim say the following I was 100% convinced that this group denies the Trinity:
"Ladies and Gentlemen Bathala is more likely Yahuah. In EVERY SENSE the creator God of Genesis."  
https://youtu.be/7pmGkSWsIbo


Only one who denies the Trinity could dare strictly identify the Philippines' hermaphroditic pagan deity with a messenger bird (Odin is also a God with a messenger bird!) as Yahuah and declare that he is in EVERY SENSE the creator God of Genesis. Tim is not so ignorant as to be unaware that Jesus Christ created all things and is thus the Creator God of Genesis. Why would he identify Jesus Christ as Bathala? How much more blasphemous could Tim be? Does he pray to Bathala?

It is true that in one of his videos Timothy Schwab does affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and opposes himself to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Iglesia Ni Cristo. In "Feasts of YHWH: Spring Feasts in New Testament? Part 1A" at 24:52 he says the following:
They especially wished to attack the deity or Godhood of Messiah. Now, they did so to such a point that entire cults today like the JWs and INC actually teach that Jesus or Yahusah was not God. Which is totally against scripture but they are using fraudulent translations. This is why they're misunderstanding. Because you use a fraudulent translation you're gonna come up with fraud. Yahusha was God, period. The Bible's very clear on that. Just read John 1 it is very clear. There is no arguing with that. 
But all based on the Wescott and Hort manuscripts who did exactly what they set out to do, attack the deity of Messiah. That's a massive problem and so many are being deceived. You can see it here in this passage that's why we wanted to demonstrate that for you to see. 
Yahusha must be God as by Him all things were created and only God can create. And he was since the beginning as God.  Not A God but as THE God, the Son indeed.
As far as the doctrine of Christ goes this is an orthodox confession right? No. Plenty of heretics such as Nestorius have believed that Jesus Christ possesses divinity. The question must be parsed even more exactly. It is safe to say that Tim rejects the definitions of Christ's divinity and person given at Nicea and Chalcedon because he rejects the Nicean Council and all the Church Councils in toto.
Now that is already a problem as no Pope nor Christian leader can be compared with John the Baptist.  Thus changing his canon of scripture which this library would represent and which we now have full documentation in his time capsule preserved in the caves of Qumran is very problematic to any traditional line attempting to suppress books considered scripture by John and by the way Yahusha even visited and was baptized there which could be considered a a further endorsement in fact.  You cannot say that about the council of Nicea or any of the other councils. Yahusha was not there and believe me not in any sense whatsoever as they eliminated the book of Jubilees and others which was scripture inspired and canon. 
BOOK OF JUBILEES: Scripture? Inspired? What does the Bible Say? Enoch, Jasher, Dead Sea Scrolls at 38:22


According to Tim Jesus Christ gave a ringing endorsement for the Book of Jubilees but not for any of the councils of the Church. Because Tim rejects the councils it follows that he does not believe Christ is only a divine person and not a human person, he does not believe Christ has two wills human and divine, he does not believe Mary is theotokos (mother of God or God-bearer), and he does not believe that Christ is divine in the way the Nicene Creed or any of the councils confesses Him to be. Whatever Tim believes about Jesus Christ, including His divinity, it is most certain that it is heretical and not in line with any of the teachings of the Church or the Ekklesia or the Body Of Christ. The fact that he does not believe Jesus is the second member of a united triad is enough to know that is true.

It has not been without a lot of badgering and persistent questioning of The God Culture that any light has been shed on their doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ. It is only recently that Tim has spoken about the Trinity in his videos and that just briefly to dismiss it as a doctrine of men.
Then espousing some doctrine of men like Trinity which is a word that never even appears in scripture once. That's why you don't see any videos from us on that. We could care less about the doctrines of men. 
https://youtu.be/EscrM4o-h4M?t=3644
The following quotes from the God Culture concerning their doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the comments section of the post "The God Culture: A Biography of Timothy Jay Schwab." For the moment these comments are the only written statements they have issued regarding their doctrine of the Trinity. I have archived it in case they decide to delete anything. 
To us, we focus on the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit not ignorant buzz words that do not even exist in scripture. That's nonsense. The Father and Son are definitely equated in scripture. The Holy Spirit not exactly but His role never-the-less is crucial and He is Yahuah's spirit indeed. Whether anyone accepts Isis-Osiris-Horus or Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz, etc., the origin of your so-called Trinity word and Doctrine not scripture, is impertinent and we don't even enter such debate as it is unnecessary and your basis is not scripture and we focus on the Word not manmade words not even found in scripture.  
Where does the Bible use the term "Trinity." Please enlighten us. Where does such concept come from in scripture?  
Please show us the words "Triune Being" in scripture which you use as supposed fact that is not debatable. You will not find it nor the word Trinity which is an immediately flag that this is something that needs to be tested. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says we are to "prove all things hold fast that which is good" because such doctrines of men need to be tested especially when they do not originate in scripture and they are many. 
When such doctrine is named after a word not in scripture, using words such as Triune Being not in scripture, you have a massive problem. It is likely a doctrine of men not Yahuah. We just read the Word and it is very clear on this. However, feel free to produce the scripture that says the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father and Son as one Triune Being, a Trinity. 
We said the Father and Son are equated and very little on a very massive topic which is why we did not answer your fraudulent paradigm as we knew you would do exactly what you just did because you are a liar. We did not say they are the same being which you just assumed from our very brief response to a topic that requires more than a blog comment especially. How stupid. You simply cannot read and screw up everything you touch. What a fool. Then, you attempt to claim we are the same as JW and INC on this topic yet you again show your ignorance as neither of them equate the Father and Son. Neither of them believe Jesus was the Son of God as we do and scripture defines and how dare you continue your disgusting communist-style agitation with scripture in further ignorance. 
We told you we believe the Father and Son are equated in scripture and you give a scripture which demonstrates this so we agree on that. 
The passage which I cited was Isaiah 9:6.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I quoted this scripture because it is a favorite of modalists who equate the Father and the Son as The God Culture says they do. They agree with this passage which seems to equate the Father and Son as the same being but they claim the two are separate. Modalists teach that the Son is not separate from the Father but is only a different manifestation, or mode, of Him. So what The God Culture is saying is not very clear. The Father and Son are equated but separate. It is a contradiction they have not thought through.

Elsewhere Tim is very clear that the Father did not become incarnate.
Now it goes on later in this same passage to identify, and you know this, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And let's be clear that is not Yahuah the Father it is only the Son Yahusha who was God, Elohim, in the flesh. Now that is specifically who is being referenced here as participating in creation. That all things were made by Him. And He is the Word. He is not only with Elohim Yahuah, He is Elohim.  
BOOK OF JUBILEES: Scripture? Inspired? What does the Bible Say? Enoch, Jasher, Dead Sea Scrolls at 41:36
If the Father did not become incarnate as the Son and there is no strict identification between the two then what exactly do they mean when they say the Father and the Son are equated? They do not say.
Anti-trinitarian is a stupid assertion. We aren't anti-trinitarian. We are PRO-Bible. We have not even produced a teaching on this Trinity Doctrine in which the word and it's buzz words are not even found in scripture because it is impertinent. It is polarizing nonsense that has no place in debate even. It is not in scripture thus no need to discuss it. Let's discuss what is. What matters is to understand the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we focus on the Biblical application of that as we should not doctrines of men you can't even produce a scripture in support of the very words you use. The Father and Son are equated but separate as they both (Us) created according to John 1 and even the Genesis Creation account. The Holy Spirit was there as well in presence and His role is not equated nor defined in that passage. You have failed to produce a scripture that equates the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son. Do they work together? Yes. Are they a Trinity and Triune Begin? Not in scripture. That is a doctrine from paganism thousands of years old not Bible. We find such doctrines in the Catholic Church because their foundation is not scripture but paganism largely. Neither the JWs nor INC believe that Jesus is God nor the Son in that sense.
What can we learn from these comments? We learn that The God Culture rejects the Trinity because the word is not in scripture. We learn that they equate the Father and the Son but still consider them to be separate and not the same being. We also learn that they are not sure about the role of the Holy Sprit but do not believe He is God. They say that the Holy Spirit, along with the Father and Son, was present at creation but elsewhere Tim seems to espouse a totally different doctrine which denies the Holy Spirit had a role in creation.


From "Sabbath Series: Part 1. What is the Sabbath? Did it pass away? The Biblical Truth."
Who made and gave the sabbath day of rest? Yahuah did with Yahusha. They both created. 
https://youtu.be/qfAybCvlAuM?t=423
Here Tim ascribes creation only to the Father and Son. Why no mention of the Holy Spirit if he too was involved in creation?

Plenty of things about their doctrine of God are still left unclear. Is the Holy Spirit a person or an impersonal force? In what way exactly are the Father and Son equated yet separate? Is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, or both?

The God Culture did not like being compared to the INC and JW's because of their anti-trinitarianism. They responded by saying they are not anti-trinitarian but pro-Bible because they transcend that paradigm which they call polarizing pagan nonsense. They also countered by saying that neither the INC or the JW's believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That is a lie.

The JW's believe Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son​—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation.
There is something else that makes this Son special. He is the “only-begotten Son.” 
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/who-is-jesus-christ/
The INC also believe Jesus is the Son of God.
The Iglesia Ni Cristo believes that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 3:17), is the one and only Savior given by God
From what The God Culture has to say about the role of the Holy Spirit it seems they consider Him as the active impersonal force of the Father and not a person. Though they do use personal language referring to the Holy Spirit as He and Him they are not clear on his personhood or lack thereof. If the Spirit is a person and is not God then He is a creature. If they believe the Holy Spirit is merely an impersonal force or power then he could not be God because God is personal. If the Spirit is only an impersonal force and not God then it means the active power of the Father and Son is created which would make no sense as everything pertaining to the Father and Son is divine and uncreated. It seems this is something The God Culture has not thought through.

In anywise they do not believe He is God and admit they are not clear on His role. If The God Culture does deny the personality of the Holy Spirit then they are in agreement with the INC and the JW's concerning Him.
We believe that the Holy Spirit is the power (Acts 1:8) sent by the Father in the name of Christ, to teach and remind His messengers of all things that Christ said (John 14:26).
https://iglesianicristo.net/beliefs-5/
The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8;Luke 1:​35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.​—Psalm 104:30; 139:7. 
In the Bible, the word “spirit” is translated from the Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma. Most often, those words refer to God’s active force, or holy spirit.
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-holy-spirit/
Regardless of what The God Culture believes about each specific member of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) it is quite clear from their own words that they reject the doctrine of the Trinity.  They call such a doctrine pagan and say it is nowhere in scripture. They make the big mistake of declaring that because a word is absent from the scripture the concept is also not present.  That would be the word concept fallacy but taken in a negative sense. They are irrefutably anti-trinitarian by their own statements even if they don't want to admit it.

The God Culture shows the stupidity of denying a doctrine because a word is not in the scripture.  Take the word omnipotent. It means all powerful. Is God all powerful? Yes. Is the word in the scripture? No. Yet The God Culture accepts this word along with the doctrine.
We have never said Yahuah was anything less than omnipotent yet you go on in your own false paradigm of ignorance.
Though it would be nice to get the utmost clarity on what The God Culture teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they are loathe to discuss the issue. They do not think it is important. One is left to guess and their listeners are left in the dark as to what they really believe about God. Perhaps if their listeners knew Timothy and The God Culture denied the Trinity they would abandon them.

What can be said for sure is that The God Culture is just another anti-trinitarian cult in the Philippines. Timothy Schwab is no better than a charlatan of the likes of Felix Manalo, Brother Eli Soriano, and Apollo Quiboloy. All those men are founders of anti-trinitarian cults in the Philippines. All of them, just like Tim, believe they were sent to restore the Word of God.


The number one mark of any cult is its exclusivity manifested in a single leader espousing a secret doctrine no one is privy to except himself and which those who ignore do so at their own peril. Timothy fits that mold quite firmly. Like Prometheus he comes bearing fire to enlighten the minds of the Filipinos as to their true identity. Timothy Jay Schwab is a true gnostic and revealer of the secret flame. He has been given a revelation from God as his website and many of his video's descriptions proclaim.

Tim is right and all the scholars and theologians are wrong. He has managed to alter his consciousness by opening his third eye, changing his paradigm, and thus shifting from a wrong conception of the world to the correct one. Timothy Jay Schwab is an ascended master who has transcended maya, the illusions of this world. He has escaped the chains of Plato's cave and invites his listeners to leave the shadows and join him in the illuminating sunlight of truth. Tim is a yogi, a guru, a buddha, a bodhisattva, a messiah, one sent to restore what has been lost. His lips speak nothing but dharma and if you ignore him or contradict him you are a demonic, communist agitator sent by Satan. So it goes for all cults.

This rejection of the Trinity and especially the divinity of the Holy Spirit leads Tim into two errors.  First is his despising and rejecting of the Church.

The God Culture is very clear about the Church. They want no part of it. They used to belong to the Church but have since shuffled off the mortal coil of Christ's Body for their own sectarian dreams and fancies. They are a schismatic group who teaches that Satan took over the Church in the 4th century. They actually claim the early church was wiped out and replaced with the synagogue of Satan.
The synagogue of satan was installed and their doctrines as what we call the early church today but the true early church was wiped out. 
New Sabbath Series Trailer
That is total nonsense and at odds with the promise of Jesus Christ that he will build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


And who is to aid in the building of the Church but the Holy Spirit?
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Tim rejects this guidance when he rejects the church councils. The councils were not men coming together to discover the truth or to hide it but rather to proclaim what the Church had always taught in contradiction to the novelties of heretics. The Holy Spirit was present guiding them. This principle is seen in Acts 15 at the very first Church council.
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Along with this preservation of the Church by the Holy Spirit is the preservation of Holy Scripture. The Church has a perfect and infallible guide to the truth in the scriptures. But Tim says that the scriptures have been corrupted and suppressed. Specifically The Book of Jubilees has been suppressed and it needs to be restored. Much of his teaching is rooted firmly in that non-scriptural book.

Rather than teaching what scripture teaches and what the Church teaches, scripture belongs to the Church after all, Tim has concocted a phony spiritual history of the Philippines and focuses almost exclusively on that. He brings in all kinds of extra-biblical books which contradict scripture, such as The Book of Jubilees, in order to prove his teachings. Tim believes that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be incorporated into scripture because they are scripture. Tim thinks the issue of our day is restoring God's Word. As if it has been lost!

The second error which comes with denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit is a false soteriology or doctrine of salvation.  In his letter to Titus the Apostle Paul lays out the true doctrine of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit in it.  It is all through the grace of Jesus Christ.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy  he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Tim preaches a doctrine that is fundamentally different from and opposed to the above verses.  His video Grafted Into the Kingdom is where his teaching on salvation really shines through.

https://youtu.be/P1bOSmv711k 

This video is an hour long exposition of John 15:5.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Tim considers this verse more than any other to be the salvation scripture verse.
10:10 This is the salvation scripture we should be memorizing, we should be quoting, we should be understanding, and we should be preaching and teaching others because this is discipleship. No one can reject Him and enter the kingdom of heaven.  No one.
He is very clear that the salvation scripture oft quoted from Romans 10 is not really the foundation of our salvation.
36:26 Romans 10 but after the famous salvation scripture which is not really the foundation for salvation at all, "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him for whosoever, meaning everyone, shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  
What famous salvation scripture is he referring to?
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Tim does not believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the foundation of our salvation! In his new video "Was Peter The Rock Upon Which the Church Was Built? Doctrines of Men: RESOLVED" Tim discusses Matthew 16 and what the church is built upon. While Tim does correctly say Jesus and not Peter is the Rock he totally ignores the fact that Jesus commends Peter's confession of faith and that it is that confession of faith in Jesus which is the Rock upon which the church is built. 
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
When the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved Paul says: 
Acts 16: 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
When the Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip what prevents him from being baptized he responds:
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Tim utterly rejects this kind of faith in Christ as being the foundation of our salvation. For Tim the foundation of our salvation lies hidden in plain sight in John 15:5.  It boils down to keeping the law. His exposition of the verse is rather simple and straightforward. To abide means one has to do something.
11:39 Abiding is doing something, by the way. It's not sitting back and doing nothing. Abiding is something that you physically have to do in relationship with Him which is never defined in all of scripture as saying a shallow prayer and checking a box on a decision card. 
This something consists in keeping the law. Relationship with God is defined by Tim as keeping the law. From Sabbath Series 3B
20:05 For us to not keep his law, uh-oh here it comes, is also to not love Him. As if we love Him what do we do? John 15, keep my commandments. Even in revelation what are they found doing at the very end the end times remnant? Keeping His commandments, His law.  Do we love him? This is a covenant folks and it is  the way it works. See that's they way he defines this. It's a covenant relationship. This is intimacy wth the Creator.  He loves you that much. He wants to be intimate with you in relationship. Are we in relationship with Him or not?
This relationship of keeping the law is the requirement of salvation. From Grafted Into the Kingdom:
18:52 Relationship with Him is the requirement of salvation and for getting our prayers answered.
Tim's sermon about how to be grafted into the kingdom is graceless and Christless. While he mentions Christ many times he never tells us WHY we need to have faith in him or WHAT he has accomplished on the cross. Tim does not talk about sin and man's need for a mediator.  He mentions repentance and the Holy Spirit very briefly at the end but does not tell us what we need to repent from. From Grafted Into the Kingdom:
68:31  He is your saviour and Lord and God and your life is meaningless without him.  But don't just say words speak your heart to Him and ask the Holy Spirit to come help you confess what you need and repent because he already knows it.  You can enter intimacy with Him right now.  No processes, no formulas, just you and Him
Everything Tim has previously said in this video contradicts this statement. Until the end of the video he had not mentioned the Holy Spirit or repentance at all. His doctrine rests wholly on keeping the law.  He rejects the grace of Christ and His work and says we must keep the law. Our salvation is dependent wholly upon us and what we do and not on what Christ has done for us. There was no mention of the Holy Spirit sanctifying us or circumcising our hearts or even writing His law on our hearts or sealing us. 
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Until this point there was no mention of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. It is the Holy Spirit who seals and keeps us but according to Tim we can lose our salvation. From Grafted Into the Kingdom:
59:10  For if God spared not the natural branches, the Israelites, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Wait I thought you couldn't lose your salvation. Hmmm.
There is absolutely no room for the grace and mercy of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in Tim's doctrine of salvation. There is no regeneration or sanctification or being washed by the Holy Ghost. No role for the Holy Spirit to produce the fruits of righteousness in us and no walking in the Spirit. 
Galatians  5:22 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. 
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit plays no role in Tim's doctrine of salvation. 


For Tim all one has to do is keep the law and have faith in Christ and you will be saved.  This does not mean the whole law. 

Tim is like many other advocates of keeping the law who only focus on laws that can be conveniently followed and appear to increase their righteousness. This includes the Saturday sabbath, the feast days, and the dietary laws. The rest of the hundreds of laws including the purity and sacrificial laws are abandoned. It is certainly not convenient for women to be cast outside of the house two weeks every month because of their monthly "sickness" as the scriptures calls it. Nor is it convenient to sacrifice animals twice a day. Most of the laws cannot be implemented anyway because to do so would require living in a society built on those laws. No advocate for keeping the law will say homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children must be stoned nor would they advocate slavery as the law clearly does.

Tim teaches that righteousness does not come from Christ but from our keeping the law. For Tim Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
We see this paradigm of the righteousness of the law being in opposition to the grace of God and the righteousness of the Gospel very clearly in Timothy's new video series about the Sabbath.

https://youtu.be/AN4ArvfMR4w?t=1004

From "Sabbath Series: Introduction Commentary Only" we hear the following at 16:44
Abraham kept the law and the sabbath. And so did Isaac and Jacob.  I mean how can they be called righteous if there was no law by which they could be judged as righteous? The very notion is ridiculous from the start.
For Tim a man can only be judged righteous insofar as he keeps the law. He clearly teaches that keeping the sabbath is a part of being saved because it is a part of keeping the law.
People ask at times how do we know we are saved? Well, are you keeping the sabbath? That is the sign of one who is saved and in relationship with Him. Sorry, we tell the truth here. 
https://youtu.be/qfAybCvlAuM?t=1666
In fact Tim says that the sabbath and the feasts, and not Jesus Christ, are the core of the entire Bible. From Sabbath Series 2A

45:00  The Sabbath and the feasts are the core of the biblical calendar and of the entire bible.
True relationship with God begins not with faith in Jesus Christ but by keeping the sabbath. From Sabbath Series part 1:
38:10 When you start keeping the sabbath you will find in the if not right away it is the biggest blessing of your life. Relationship with Him really begins right there. I can attest to that personally.
But then Tim flips the script and says that keeping the sabbath is just about spending time with God and is not about salvation at all. From Sabbath Series Part 1:
36:35  So what is the sabbath? How do we keep it?  This is the truly amazing thing it's not actually that hard to keep and since when is it such a bad thing to teach people to spend a day with Yahuah? I mean how dare we, oh what a terrible, terrible group we are to spend time with Yahuah. That's awful don't do that. That's really the position. Come on. Let's break it down. 
From Sabbath Series 3A:
So He created a day of rest for us to spend with Him and now to practice such is called being a heretic. Hah, hah. Heretic? Against what? Since when could it ever be a bad practice to set aside a day to spend with Him?  The very notion the church would even make such a statement requires insanity practically. 
https://youtu.be/zCwDTRzkYqo?t=378
From Sabbath Series 3B
22:35 One person commented drawing the conclusion that we teach sabbath is salvation and that, we want to call out right now, is absolutely ridiculous. Wrong. We never said that. We said knowing Him in a true relationship is and always has been, even in the Old Testament, salvation.
Tim goes from saying that keeping the sabbath is a sign of salvation to saying it is merely setting aside a day to worship God. Then after he has declared that keeping the sabbath is a part of being saved he rejects that very notion saying that he never said it when he clearly did say it! Then he says the church questions the notion of having a day to spend with God and calls it heresy. This is all a masterful deception foisted upon the unsuspecting listener. Tim flips the script from one sentence to the next.

The Church does not question the setting aside a day to spend with Him. It's called the Lord's Day or Sunday, the day Christ rose from the dead. That is the day the church worships. What the Church calls heresy is the Judaizing which is fundamental to keeping the Saturday sabbath. There is no group that advocates sabbatarianism which does not also advocate other various Jewish practices such as keeping the feasts and the food laws. The evil is making salvation, abiding in Christ, depend on the keeping the law including the sabbath. Tim skips over all of that, gives zero context, misrepresents the Church, and calls the Church insane.

What's insane is that Tim tells people they must keep the feasts and the sabbath but he admits he doesn't even know the correct calendar by which to celebrate the feasts and the sabbath. There is a hypocrisy in Tim's sabbath keeping as he admits they do not know the proper calendar and when to keep the sabbath. But no worry because they are researching it.
The isn't about legalism folks. It's just about obedience. That's it.  For those worried they might do something wrong at first relax.  The point is give Him a day every week. We observe at Friday sundown to Saturday at sundown but there are several out there even now trying to figure out the biblical calendar including us to some degree. And we are open to good research on the topic. So we are not married to that timeframe necessarily but that's what we're doing until it's been overturned by good solid research. As of now we see nothing which overturns it as of yet. In fact even the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the sabbath begins at sundown on Friday. 
https://youtu.be/qfAybCvlAuM?t=3569
Let's be clear, no one has truly reconciled the Hebrew calendar of the Bible with our modern Roman one that we have found and this is not a "Jewish" holiday but a Biblical day which was not only kept by Hebrews but by Gentiles even in the time of Moses. This is a task we began a while ago and hoped to complete prior to this season but our research is just not ready on that yet. However, these are the dates we keep for the Feasts and we are sharing with you. There are many other interpretations out there. The point for all of us is keep the feasts even if you prefer a different calendar as Paul and Luke especially admonished rather than pagan replacements that are rebuked by scripture even.  
https://www.facebook.com/376627072897316/photos/a.382595402300483/533518283874860/?type=3&theater
I said there was no grace in Tim's system but that is not exactly true because The God Culture actually says law IS grace!
His law is grace and always has been. Salvation was available to even gentiles in Exodus and has been all along. The gospel of grace is a manipulation we will deal with. We are saved by grace but we have to do something. We cannot claim to make Him our Lord but then ignore that which He is Lord of especially the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a perfect example of His grace from the 7th Day when He created it as He realized man needed a Day of Rest set aside and set apart for Him. The notion that the law is absent grace is outright fraud on the part of so-called scholars. It is Pharisee leaven and we will deal with this. Yah Bless.
Sabbath Series: Part 1. What is the Sabbath? Did it pass away? The Biblical Truth.
"His law is grace." "We are saved by grace but we have to do something." That is a confounding of grace and law. Throughout his whole teaching Tim confuses the moral law of the ten commandments with the rest of the ceremonial laws which Christ has fulfilled. Contrary to Jesus who cried from the cross, "It is finished," Tim teaches Christ has not fulfilled the law or the old covenant at all.

From Grafted Into the Kingdom:
30:18  He came to fulfill the covenant which is certainly for us indeed. This was His purpose but has He done this yet? Didn't He do that on the cross already and in His resurrection? Well let's see what He says about that. 
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law," that's the law of Moses, "or the prophets," that's the Old Testament, the writings of the prophets. "I am not come to destroy," destroy what? The law of Moses nor the Old Testament.  "But to fulfill," fulfill what? The law of Moses and the prophecies of the prophets, the Old Testament. And then He tells when all will be fulfilled and he does not use His resurrection as the timestamp at all.  "For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle," Hebrew letters basically, "shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."   
Now when does heaven and earth pass away? When all is fulfilled. Did it pass away at His resurrection. No. It's still there. Revelation 21 says that heaven and earth pass away at the time of the final judgment basically. Look around. Has earth passed away yet? If someone tells you it ever did they don't know scripture because the first heaven and earth are still here.  
And the second one does not take place until that time of the end according to scripture essentially at the final judgement. But also this passage tells us when the law is fulfilled. All is fulfilled when? When heaven and earth pass away.  Why, by the way?  Because heaven and earth are the witnesses to the law in scripture. Keep reading though. 
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Why would He say this knowing He was about to go to the cross if He were about to fulfill the law?
From "Sabbath Series: Part 1. What is the Sabbath? Did it pass away? The Biblical Truth."

So one "I", one "T" shall in no wise Pass. From. The. Law. Boom! So they don't pass from the law when? Till all be fulfilled. Wait when is that? When is all fulfilled? Not until heaven or earth pass on the day of final judgement. See, His work is a work in progress, He is still fulfilling the law. He is still keeping it. Heaven is still keeping the sabbath. Why aren't we?  
Tim contradicts his own teaching in Sabbath Series part 1.
37:01 Some will note the sabbath included sacrifices both incense and animals and in deed it did especially in the temple days, yes absolutely, no doubt, that is fact. However there is no temple right now for one, and Yahusha became a sacrifice for us in scripture many times over, we'll cover this. So it's already made a sacrifice. A sacrifice has been made but that does not in any sense abolish the sabbath just because he's our sabbath sacrifice. He did not fulfill the sacrifice so that you and I would no longer have to spend time with Him. That doesn't make any sense but the opposite is true. 
Right here Tim says Christ fulfilled the law of sacrifices. But how can this be when heaven and earth have not passed away? For Tim to be consistent in his teaching that Christ has not fulfilled the law he will have to continue to sacrifice and saying there is no temple does not give Tim a free pass because, as he teaches, the Mosaic law of sacrifices and feasts was kept by Adam and the rest of the patriarchs. You can't have Christ fulfilling some of the law and not all of it. The law is a whole.

All the types, all the sacrifices, all the works of the law have been fulfilled in and by Him. He is of the priesthood of Melchisidec and since the priesthood has changed the law has changed. 
Hebrew 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
He entered into heaven once for all to offer up Himself for us. That is the message of Hebrews. It is no wonder that Tim mangles that message rather spectacularly saying that sabbatarianism is a mark of God's people. That is a flipping on the head of what Hebrews actually says. Now we enter into His rest because Christ, just as He is our Passover, is also our sabbath rest. In their own material The God Culture even acknowledges that we rest in Christ.


There are certainly more consequences of denying the Trinity than a rejection of the Church and a wrong doctrine of salvation but for now it is enough to expose The God Culture for what they really are. They are an anti-trinitarian and sabbatarian cult whose doctrine is completely opposed to that of Christianity and the Bible. The Philippines has plenty of these kinds of cults already without needing The God Culture to spew their filth all across these islands. The God Culture admits they "have not even produced a teaching on this Trinity Doctrine." This blog post will have to fill that gap for now. 

The God Culture: "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" Book Review

For centuries the notion that the Philippines is Ophir has been the province of wistful explorers, inquisitive Jesuits, cranks, and iconoclastic revisionist historians. Now Timothy Jay Schwab and his band of merry men known as The God Culture, who embody all four of the aforementioned categories especially the last one, are attempting to bring this same idea into the mainstream. Tim and his group have published a book that they claim proves indisputably beyond any contradiction that the Philippines is indeed Ophir, the land from whence King Solomon procured his fabulous wealth and the ancient Greeks' source of gold. On the back cover they proudly declare that this book is a "great revelation amending modern scholarship."

This book is the end result of The God Culture's hundreds of Youtube videos and it reads just the way Tim talks in those videos. That is quite a problem because the first thing to notice about this book, aside from the fact that a few pages came loose indicating the binding is bad, is it's shrill, antagonistic, defensive, and prideful tone. On nearly every single page from the beginning to the end The God Culture wants the reader to know they are right, scholars are wrong, they have vetted and tested everything, scholars have overlooked everything, and no one can disprove their four years of research especially not any scholar who has devoted a lifetime of study to the topics The God Culture covers. They accuse some of those scholars as being liars and propagandists. With a variant of that hubris glaring angrily back at the reader on nearly every page the book becomes rather burdensome to read. It's obvious they are carrying a huge chip on their shoulder.

The grammar is also strained and cumbersome in many places. Take a look at these phrases:
"This is why we demand they prosecute the sweeping conclusions...."  pg. 23

"We are haggard of this generation..." pg. 23
"Let's firm this up with girth." pg.46

"If not, they are worship."  pg.258
I think that last one might be half a sentence Tim forgot to finish. There's also a bizarre harangue against Oprah on page 57 and Tim actually accuses Mark Zuckerberg of censoring his group's Facebook page and of being a Rothschild on page 215. The God Culture thinks the founder of Facebook is part of the same family of Jewish financiers they claim paid Samuel Purchas to write up a fake location of Ophir.

Purchas was a Rothschild puppet paid to propagate the opposition to the Philippines as Ophir. That's called propaganda.
This is wrong in so many ways and I have written before how Purchas was not paid by the East India Company to write his multivolume series. Purchas wrote in the 1600's and the Rothschilds did not come on the scene until the Napoleonic wars 200 years later. That's called poisoning the well and bad research. There is a lot of that kind of bad research in this book and I'm not going to be able to cover it all. In fact only the first 15 chapters have anything to do with history and proving the Philippines is Ophir. Chapters 16-21 are all prophetic and religious or a ridiculous geology lesson which purports to find the rivers of Eden. Spoiler alert: they are not actually rivers but huge ocean trenches. On page 259 of the accompanying Sourcebook we read that this theory only works on a flat earth model:

In ancient times, the world generally especially the writers of the Bible believed the earth a flat round disc essentially. This is the perspective from which this is written not the modern sphere. We do not enter such debate but when one follows the actual orientation of the time, they will find it revealing. Anyone claiming the ancients believed in a sphere failed to pay attention in science class and are no scholars on the topic.

Don't expect real geology or geography from a man who believes the earth is flat!

Where to begin? This book is overwhelming and the breadth of sheer nonsense contained within its pages is so deep and wide that I'm only going to hit a few high points. The question I will be considering here is not "is the Philippines Ophir" but "has Tim proven his case beyond any reasonable doubt." I do not believe he has.

The first point to go over is Tim's etymology of the word Ophir. In the book he gives two differing definitions for this word. Definition one is "gold" and definition two is "mouth of light." You can tell right away those definitions do not jibe. 

According to Tim's own Sourcebook Ophir does not mean gold but "characteristic of fine gold" and that is a big difference. 


Definition C says "Characteristic of fine gold." But in his book Tim excises the word "characteristic" and claims that Ophir means "fine gold."


Hebrew: Owphiyr: reducing to ashes, fine gold.
Why would he do that? It's disingenuous and dishonest. "Characteristic of fine gold" is not the same as "fine gold." As far as I can tell there are actually three words for gold used in the scriptures: kethemzahab, and paz. Ophir is not one of those words.

Tim next attempts to find a secret meaning in the spelling of the word itself. Having falsely claimed that Ophir means gold the word Ophir, through a sort of gematria, now becomes a mystical cipher for gold and is no longer the name of a person or place. Tim says Ophir should be spelt AUPYR, AUPIR, or AUPHYR. AU is the chemical symbol for gold thus gold is contained symbolically within the word. In fact Tim claims that the word Ophir is the origin of the chemical symbol for gold.

pg. 24
The origin of the chemical symbol for gold, AU, is said to be the Latin Aurum or Aurea which we will determine in the next chapter is the equivalent of Ophir. The is the kingdom of gold for the Greeks which carried over uno Latin but AUPYR is the origin of that reference as you will find this the true origin of the symbol for gold - AU.
Nothing in that paragraph is true. AU are Latin characters and not Hebrew characters. Each of Tim's three alternate spellings are merely transliterations into English. He is projecting and transposing the Latin onto the Hebrew in order to get at this supposed hidden meaning. If you take a look at the Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome from the Hebrew, you will see that he always translates Owphyir as Ophir and not as AUPYR or any of Tim's transliterations and certainly not as Aurea or Aurum.

https://vulgate.org/ot/1kings_9.htm

Interestingly in Job 28:16 of Jerome's translation, Ophir becomes India.

https://vulgate.org/ot/job_28.htm

This all comes into play later when Tim discusses Josephus and the Golden Chersoneses. In book 8 sec 6.4 of the Antiquities Jospehus writes:
....to whom Solomon gave this command, that they should go along with his own stewards to the land that was of old called Ophirbut now the Aurea Chersonesuswhich belongs to India: to fetch him gold.
Commenting on this passage Tim writes:
Aurea in Latin is Chryse in Greek which is Ophir in Hebrew. He also ties this to the Indian land of golden antiquity and remember, India was vast in interpretation in those days from Afghanistan to the Indies including the Philippines.
p.34
We have already seen that Aurea is not Ophir via the Latin Vulgate. Aurea and chryse both mean gold but Ophir does not.

India being "vast in interpretation" to include the Indies and the Philippines (what are the Indies??) is wrong. The fact is the Indian subcontinent was the farthest known inhabited land to the east and I will discuss that more below. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans knew of the Philippines as their maps and descriptions of the world make perfectly clear. 

A little further on when Tim is discussing the mythical island of Chryse he writes:

The island of Chryse which Josphus has told us is Biblical Ophir....


p.43

Josephus never wrote that. Do you see the sleight of hand? Josephus wrote that Solomon sent ships to Ophir which is the Aurea Chersonesus which means golden peninsula. He calls that peninsula Ophir and says nothing about an island. Furthermore Josephus says it belongs to India. 


Tim is able to make this sleight of hand because of his false etymology of "Aurea in Latin is Chryse in Greek which is Ophir in Hebrew." He is again transposing words, this time Aurea and Chryse. In Tim's mind the Aurea Chersonesus becomes Chryse Chersonesus and thus the island of Chryse. But chersonesus means peninsula not island. Tim ignores that word dropping it completely and makes a huge geographic blunder misinterpreting and misrepresenting what Josephus actually wrote. On page 34 Tim even admits chersonesus means peninsula.

He (Jospehus) renders it in Latin Aurea Chersonesus in which Aurea or Aururm is the origin of the chemical symbol "AU" for gold and Chersonesus is the word for peninsula. It is an island.

Despite this admission Tim insists it is is an island. He totally ignores what Josephus wrote and gives no reason for it.


In the century following Josephus Ptolemy wrote about the Aurea Chersonesus in his Geography. He is clear that the place is a peninsula, not an island, and he actually lists names of towns and rivers which flow in the region. Ptolemy's description of the Aurea Chersonesus is very detailed. However Tim does not think Ptolemy is credible at all.

Pliny never alludes to Chryse as a peninsula. He firmly identifies it as an island several times and to claim this noted geographer was confused about the difference is illogical. Ptolemy makes that error but his map is no where near credible regarding Southeast Asian geography which is practically non-existent. 

pg. 34

If Tim thinks the Aurea Chersonesus is actually the singular island Chryse and thus the archipelago known as the Philippines then he should have discussed Ptolemy's description of the place and told us why it is not credible but he does not. He ignores it altogether by dismissing it out of hand as not being credible. Paul Wheatley has not ignored it. He wrote a whole book about the subject and a 21 page paper about Ptolemy's description can be read at JSTOR.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/621273?seq=1

But Tim does not care what Wheatley has to say on the matter as he considers him to be an academic fraud. On page 30 of the sourcebook which accompanies "Solomon's Treasure" Tim writes the following:

Wheatley quotes these directions and then ignores them to attempt to lead to the Malay Peninsula which was proven false as Ophir especially by the Portuguese who first occupied the area yet continued searching for Ophir elsewhere. Magellan specifically identified the Philippines as Ophir/Chryse and Tarshish/Argyre. So many authors on this topic continue to ignore the Philippines exists yet these directions are obvious. In fact, just about every reference including Ptolemy rule out the Malay Peninsula as it is not and island and this was well known even by him, Josephus and others. The did not know the isles of the Philippines yet before the Common Era but they would. To go backwards is progressing though and pull out places already eliminated is backwards reasoning. No actual modern scholarship could possibly lead to the Malay Peninsula which was proven not to be Ophir despite the British attempt at academic fraud continue to propagate a dead claim. The Beatus Map further ties Ophir/Chryse to the Garden of Eden which we see often. Obviously, the Rivers of Paradise cannot be such modern rivers as the originate in precipitation and Gen. 2:5 says there was no rain before the Flood this they did not exist. Also, it fails to recognize the largest river, the River From Eden itself a most so-called theories do. The Garden of Eden was located when Ophir was found.

The directions referred to is the description of Chryse given by Dionysius Periegetes. The level of ignorance in this note is rather astounding. To write that Ptolemy does not describe the Malay Peninsula is to be ignorant of his detailed description of towns and rivers and the geography in general. No matter how you slice it Ptolemy is describing a peninsula and not an island. It appears that Tim has not read Ptolemy at all or else has read him very selectively. Tim is also once again conflating the mythical island of Chryse with the very real Aurea Chersonesus. Even the Behaim map of 1492, which Tim extols as a major proof for his theories, designates the Aurea Chersonesus as a peninsula while the island of Chryse is placed elsewhere.


https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-god-culture-finding-chryse-dont.html


The second definition Tim gives for Ophir is "mouth of light." With this definition Ophir now becomes a compound word and all connections to gold have vanished. We are given no coherent justification for this transformation and it makes no sense either. On pages 24-25 Tim simply makes a huge leap from talking about gold to talking about light and claims that the Hebrew word for light is the origin of the word Ophir.  The explanation is forced and comes out of nowhere. A word cannot both be and not be a compound word. With a bit more gematria Tim has now bestowed an esoteric and an exoteric meaning upon the word Ophir. 
This verse (Isiah 24:15) even identifies the isles of the sea which we will later prove is Ophir even tying Ophir to this same word for light which is it's true origin etymologically. AUR is "light" and insert PY for AUPYR and it renders "Mouth of Light."
pg.25
Does Tim not realize that AURPY is not AUPYR? Tim gives no reason for this etymology except for the similar sound between the words.

This linguistic method shows up in chapter 14 where Tim attempts to break down Tagalog words as being residual Hebrew compound words. In that chapter familiar Filipino place names are bequeathed nonsensical and unfamiliar meanings. Take his interpretation of Samar on page 188 for instance.

https://www.pealim.com/dict/1380-lismor/

Samar Island
:
Hebrew name: סָמַר he/it bristled. Past Tense 
Bristled in English: 
1 (of hair or fur) stand upright away from the skin, as a sign of anger or fear. 2 react angrily or defensively. 3 (bristle with) be covered with or abundant in 
Our Interpretation: Standing Upright in Righteous Anger in Abundance
Look at how in Tim's hand the simple word "bristled" has transformed into an ungainly phrase. He does not justify this convoluted interpretation. We are simply supposed to take it as it is. Most place names have to do with topography or climate or tribe. Why would anyone name their island "standing upright in righteous anger in abundance?" He does not say. Tim cites Wikipedia authoritatively in his book so let's see Wikipedia has to say about the etymology of Samar:
Samar is said to be derived from Samad, the Visayan word for "wound" or "cut", describing the rough physical features of the land which is rugged and deeply dissected by streams.
Whether that etymology is true or not it is true that every single place name that Tim divides into Hebrew compound words has an alternate explanation as to its origin which he does not discuss. To drive the point home further that these etymologies are false Tim writes:
...Samar likely named for Samaria.

p.189
He just got done telling us that Samar Island is derived from a Hebrew word which means "bristled" which means "Standing Upright in Righteous Anger in Abundance." Now he says it is named after Samaria. Samaria derives from a very different word and has a totally different meaning than Samar.

Meaning
Shemer's Place, Place Of Watch Keeping
Etymology
From the verb שמר (shamar), to keep or guard.
Tim writes again and again that Hebrew scholars have overlooked many things. How could Tim overlook this?  How could he make this mistake if the Hebrew he is using is genuine? Because he is not being genuine with his usage of Hebrew.  He is looking at similarity of sound. If a word sounds Hebrew then to him it is Hebrew. 

In his sources Tim cites a Hebrew teacher who says there are similarities between the construction of Tagalog and Hebrew. That is a far cry from saying Tagalog is derived from Hebrew. This same teacher says there are similarities in construction between Tagalog and native Mexican languages as well as between English and Chinese. Applying Tim's logic English would be derived from Chinese or vice versa.

Did he say Biblical Hebrew? The Spanish certainly relabeled portions of the Philippines but not all and not all of their names cemented either.
pg. 178
Tim excitedly makes a big leap from "Tagalog is constructed like Hebrew" to "Tagalog is derived from Hebrew." He then proceeds to give alleged Hebrew etymologies for various place names in the Philippines. He even claims Pilipinas is a Hebrew compound word! What nonsense. It is derived from  King Philip II of Spain whom these islands are named after. Or was the Philippines known as the Philippines before it was actually named the Philippines?  

The second point I want to discuss, and which I have discussed at length elsewhere, is the island of Chryse. Tim has a whole chapter devoted to Chryse. He calls it the ancient Greek's source of gold and identifies it with the Aurea Chersonesus of Josephus and thus Ophir. Not once in this "monumental case for the Philippines no one can disprove" does he discuss the supposed Greek mining or trade operations in the Philippines or Ophir or why such operations began and then ceased. He never tells us why the Greeks sailed half way around the world for gold when it is to be found in their backyard in abundance as the vast wealth of Croesus attests. He merely states it as a fact and moves on. His assumptions about the Greeks sailing to the Philippines for gold appear to be entirely based on the alleged existence of the fabled island of gold named Chryse which shows up on only a few maps while the sister island of silver, Argyre, shows up on only one map. He is making the assumption that "islands of gold and silver on a Greek map = the Greek's source of gold and silver" without proving it.

On page 125 Tim writes the following about the Greeks allegedly inheriting the shipping route to the Philippines from the Phoenicians:
Rome did not benefit from this knowledge so easily as this was established by Israel with Phoenicia managing the route. Greece inherited this and, as they represent Tarshish's family. That makes sense.
pg. 125
"That makes sense."  What kind of conclusion is that? He is making another huge assumption with no proof or discussion of the matter. Where is the proof that the Phoenicians gave the Greeks the route map to Ophir? Why would they give the Greeks this information? Like much of the argumentation in this book it is either non-existent or logically fallacious.  In this case it is either post hoc, ad hoc, begging the question, or affirming the consequent. Maybe all four! No one who wants to be taken seriously as a researcher would write in such a sloppy and illogical manner. 

There is more that Tim lazily refuses to discuss. On page 44 he writes:
Throughout history, the Philippines was recorded as the Land of Gold by other nations. The Greeks named it Chryse, "The Golden One." Indian history called it Suvarnadwipa or "Island of Gold" as the Periplus is the record of those directions. The Chinese log the Philippines as Lusong Dao "Isles of Gold" in 200 A.D. Buddhist i-Tsing named it Chin-Chou "Isle of Gold" and Chin-Lin, "Golden Neighbor" in 671 A.D. which is Suvarnadwipa. Finally the Chinese characterize the Philippines as Chin-San, "Mountain of Gold. [See Sourcebook]
pg. 44
Rather than discuss anything in that paragraph he directs the reader to the Sourcebook. I suppose it's too much to expect Tim to explain to us why he thinks those names refer to the Philippines. This is supposed to be a presentation of "the monumental case for the Philippines no one can disprove."  He should be presenting a thorough case which examines all the evidence and not directing his readers elsewhere. Each one of those names deserves its own chapter.

The Sourcebook is not helpful because there is no real discussion of the names and why they refer to the Philippines but only screenshots of Wikipedia, brief notes which are full of baseless assertions, and links to sources which contradict Tim's narrative. Let's take a look at Source 28 which I could not find bracketed in this paragraph or anywhere else in the book.


This is an article on Cornell's website titled "Suvarnadvipa and the Chryse Chersonesos." Tim has highlighted a paragraph on page 3 which discusses the content of the Periplus of the Erythean Sea.

During the reign of Augustus, an increasing number of Greeks were trading with the west coast of India. They reached the east coast, probably over land, around the middle of the first century. One of their pilots, who collected his information in the second half of the first century, but whose personal experience did not reach beyond the west coast, wrote a detailed guide for voyages around the Indian Ocean, the Periplous. His account of the exploration of the mouth of the Ganges and beyond is therefore probably based on information which he gathered in ports along the northwest coast of India. This information contained only vague indications about the exact location of the places mentioned. The writer was told about a mainland region called "Golden," the most eastern continent toward the orient, situated around, above, beyond (he peri auten) the Ganges mouth. Downwards from, opposite to or near the same river (kat’auton de ton potamon) ,however, and also an extreme eastern part of the inhabited world, lying exactly towards sunrise (hup'auton aneohonta ton he'lion), i.e., due east, lay an oceanic island of the same name.

pg.3
I do not know why Tim highlights this paragraph or what he thinks it proves because he does not discuss it.  However on the very next page this author upends Tim's thesis about the Indians and the Buddhist i-Tsing labelling the Philippines as a land of gold by naming Sumatra as the fabled island of Chryse and Suvarnadvipa.

If Suvarnadvipa (or whatever a Gold Island was called in the language they used) for the pilots of the first century was an island in the strict sense of the word and a particular one, from the end of the seventh century onward there is no doubt at all that this island was Sumatra. The connection is accepted by I-tsing, by the Ndlanda inscription and by Nepalese and Arab sources as self-evident.


This name for Sumatra was well founded on its rich deposits of gold and silver.

pg.4
If Tim was really interested in making a "monumental case for the Philippines no one can disprove" then why does he neglect to discuss this proof for Sumatra? Why not discuss ALL the information relevant to his topic? Why include in his Sourcebook a source which contradicts him and not even bother to refute it? It's more poor research and weak argumentation on his part.

As far as Tim is concerned Sumatra, which is part of Indonesia, cannot be Ophir or the land of gold or Chryse for one simple reason.
....West Sumatra, Indonesia which is actually in Ham's territory not even Shem's.

pg. 222
Let's back up a bit here. Timothy Schwab believes that the Book of Jubilees is actual history and not simply a 2nd temple apology for the law written for the express purpose of extolling it as God's supreme revelation. 
Obviously, the chief object of the work is to exalt the Law (and Hasidæan practise) as divinely ordained and fixed from eternityto extol the institutions of the Sabbath and circumcision as heavenly signs distinguishing Israel from the rest of the nations, and, finally, to draw the sharpest possible lines of demarcation between Israel and the Gentiles—in striking contrast to the practise of the Hellenist party.
If Tim really believed the Gospel he would rightly reject The Book of Jubilees as pseudepigraphal Jewish rubbish.
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
But Tim, like the author of Jubilees, who is not Moses by the way, believes the law is an eternal revelation from God to which we are bound even at this day. He is fully convinced that The Book of Jubilees is scripture. That means he takes the narrative of Noah dividing the earth among his three sons to be Gospel truth. According to Tim's interpretation when this division is mapped out, on a false flat earth model no less according to page 259 of the Sourcebook, Indonesia is part of the territory given to Ham and the Philippines is part of the territory given to Shem. Ophir is a descendant of Shem which means Ophir the place, which is the homeland of Ophir the man, can NEVER be located in Ham's territory.

Because Tim limits himself to looking for Ophir in what he believes is Shem's territory he has disabled himself and set a boundary to his inquiry. Understand then that Tim's research is no free inquiry asking bold questions but has self-imposed geographical strictures placed around it by which he shall not pass. This is the same thing he does when he declares there is no archaeology like temples or buildings to be found in Ophir and to look for such is a false paradigm.
Many seek this architecture in demand to prove this narrative and they are stuck in a false paradigm. There is none to be expected nor has any other nation on earth produced such nor will they.

Ancient Ophir is never described as having temples at all whether alone ones of gold, it is never recored to have great infrastructure in any sense just a mega-abundance of resources. The humble lifestyle of the Filipino even fits the oath of a Rechabite as Farrisol said.
pg. 128-129
The humble lifestyle of the Filipino? Tim shows us pictures from the Boxer Codex of men and women decked out in fine clothing and lots of gold jewelry. Is that humble? Of course not and this nonsense about Filipinos taking the Rechabite oath is also contradicted when Tim mentions Sugarcane wine on page 127. Rechabites don't drink wine!

To which description of Ophir is Tim referring? The Bible does not describe Ophir at all! It only tells us what was brought back from the place. We sure don't read that Ophirians lived in nipa huts or anything like that though Tim talks about them on page 242. His claim that Ophir never had temples or infrastructure is baseless. It is his own assumption which serves to excuse him from having to do any archaeological work to actually prove his thesis. Perhaps he does not realize it but an absence of any architecture or other kind of remains with inscriptions indicating, whether obliquely or directly, "this is Ophir" is fatal to his case. With no solid rock on which to rest, the whole "monumental case for the Philippines" being Ophir is built entirely upon the sinking sand of Tim's own opinions, assumptions, and interpretations of Wikipedia articles. This is quite ironic seeing as how he begins the book proving Ophir existed by showing an inscription on ancient pottery unearthed in Israel.

pg.20
This attested fragment confirms the existence of the land of gold from which King Solomon's navy imported resources. It also demonstrates Ophir is a legitimate, physical land of Gold and no legend.
Likewise his claim that Ophir must have more gold than any nation in the world ever is also a baseless assumption. It could be that all the gold in Ophir was mined and the land is now depleted of resources. Tim does not explore that possibility but assumes that if one "tests the resources" we find Ophir and according to him only the Philippines passes the test. Let's look at one of those resources, ivory.
Many have attempted to debate that the Philippines does not have elephants and look around today and this is a true point but not in antiquity.
pg. 98 
Here you have Tim admitting that resources have been depleted over time. How does he prove that elephants and thus ivory was once abundant in the Philippines during the time of Solomon? Through archaeology, he says. After quoting several articles including Wikipedia and an opinion piece from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Tim writes:
However, one must overlook tons of archaeology in order to conclude elephants were not native to the Philippines including the very latin identification of species which is specific to the Philippines such as Rhinoceros philippinensis unearthed in Fort Bonaficio along with Stegedon luzonensisBubalus cebuensis, a dwarf buffalo found in Cebu and Elephas Beyeri named after anthropologist H. Ottley Beyer who found these bones on Cabarruyan Island In Luzon.
pg.100
Actually what Tim is describing is not archaeology but paleontology and there are not tons of it but merely a few prehistoric fossils. Instead of proving to the reader how the existence of the fossils of a prehistoric rhinoceros, stegedon, dwarf buffalo, and dwarf elephant proves that the Philippines was teeming with elephants and was a major source for ivory during the time of Solomon, Tim merely states it as a fact and claims he could write a whole book about the subject. He then goes on to record the testimony of Jesuits who wrote of the existence of elephants in the Philippines. But Tim already admitted those elephants were imported to the Philippines by the Sultanate of Sulu from Java in the 1300's which is long after Solomon.

Let us return to Sumatra and the rest of Indonesia. Tim once again gives wrong directions from the Periplus and Dionysius and Mela in attempting to prove that the mythical Chryse is the Philippines. I'm not interested in retreading that ground but Tim makes two mistakes that are so egregiously wrong I cannot pass them by without notice.  First he interprets the directions from Dionysius Periegetes on a flat earth model falsely claiming that the Greeks of the first century believed in a flat earth. On page 33 of the Sourcebook Tim writes:

NOTE: Taprobane is not South of the Philippines in reality but in the perspective of the flat earth maps of the first century, it most certainly was. In 124 B.C., that was still the thinking and one must reconcile the meaning from the author’s mindset. Also, note the use of Taprobana in that period remains a question as to whether the inference is Sri Lanka or Sumatra. That debate was not settled until the 17th century. No one knows to which Dionysius was actually referring in 124 A.D. but such debate is unnecessary to settle in order to locate Chryse by all the markers present which are very obvious.
This is so unbelievably false that reading it is enough to let one know Tim has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to ancient Greece let alone their mindset. The Greeks knew the earth was round. That is an indisputable fact of history.
The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophersIn the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference.
It also appears that 124 BC should actually be 124 AD. Tim writes that no one knew if Taprobana referred to Sri Lanka or Sumatra! How can he be this obtuse!? Did he forget that EVERY SINGLE ancient Greek map and description of the earth OMITS Sumatra and all of Indonesia? He even notes that fact on this particular map in the sourcebook. It is this omission which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no ancient Greeks ever sailed to the Philippines. But more on that below.

Second of all Tim flubs Mela's directions by confusing China with India.  From the Sourcebook on page 28 we see this map:


Their source for Mela is Frank Romer's translation as found here: https://topostext.org/work/145. Tim starts at book 3.67 but he would have done well to start further back at 3.59 which is where the section about India and the Far East begins. Mela, much like Dionysius, is taking a route that goes around the world through the arctic. That alone should give one pause as to the authenticity of this description because no one sailed that route until modern times. In 3.60 he mentions the Seres or Silk People.  This is an obvious reference to the Chinese and Romer acknowledges this in his footnote which is found in his book but not at the website.

Romer Pg. 118

At 3.62 we read this fantastic description of India:

§ 3.62  Moreover, it is fertile and teems with a different type of human being and other animals. It sustains ants that are no smaller than the biggest dogs, ants that reportedly guard, like griffins, gold that is mined from deep within the earth, and that pose the greatest threat to anyone who touches it. India also sustains monstrous snakes that with their bite and the winding constriction of their bodies can stop an elephant in its tracks. It is so rich in some places and has such productive soil that in this country honey drips from the leaves, trees bear wool, and rafts of split bamboo even convey, like ships, two persons at a time, some even conveying three at a time.

Does Tim believe that in India there are ants as big as dogs who guard caches of gold? Regardless if he does or does not notice that we have dropped down from China to India in this section. China is done. The tour is over. We are now in India. Tim begins his interpretation of these directions at 3.67 which is a description of the coastline of India and reads as follows:

§ 3.67  The Palibothri hold the coastline from Point Tamus to the Ganges. From the Ganges to Point Colis, except where it is too hot to be inhabited, are found black peoples, Aethiopians so to speak. From Point Colis to the Indus the shores are straight, and peoples live there who are timorous and quite prosperous because of the sea's riches.

Chryse and Argyre are mentioned three paragraphs later and are located next to Point Tamus.

§ 3.70  Alongside Point Tamus is the island of Chryse, beside the Ganges the island of Argyre. The first has golden soil — so the old writers have handed down — the other has silver soil. Moreover, as seems to be the case really, either the name comes from the fact, or the legend comes from the designation. Taprobane is said to be either a very large island or the first part of the second world, but because it is inhabited, and because no one reportedly has circumnavigated it, the latter interpretation is as good as true.

Tim messes up big time by identifying Point Tamus as China. 


It is not China. China is not a point on the coast, it's a huge nation! Here is what Romer has to say in his footnotes:


He identifies Point Tamus with Cape Negrais in Myanmar. Because Tim misidentifies this locale as China he gets his directions all wrong. The Philippines is nowhere near the Ganges yet he wants us to believe that Mela is describing the 7,000 island archipelago which is the Philippines when he mentions TWO islands off the coast of India. Tim also never explains why Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula are missing from this map when in order to sail to the Philippines one must pass by those places.  Tim's notes on Mela are on page 19 of the sourcebook.

Moving on let's cut the Gordian knot and be done with misidentifying Chryse as the Philippines. First of all on no Greek map do we find Indonesia and to get to the Philippines you HAVE TO sail past Indonesia. It looks like this:


The absence of Indonesia on all of the ancient Greek maps Tim utilizes obliterates his claim that the Greeks sailed past India to the Philippines and he cannot account for its absence. But Herodotus can. From Book 3.106 of The History of Herodotus:

India is the most distant of inhabited lands towards the East

Herodotus is the strongest proof against everything Tim is claiming. For instance he claims that Greeks were trading with the Philippines and vice versa by 800 B.C. and that they were taking the long way around Africa.

Even after Solomon, King Jehoshaphat attempted to rebuild and re-establish trade with Ophir yet the ships were destroyed by Yahuah (1 Ki. 22-48). Understand that this is very close to the era in which the Northern Kingdom was about to be taken captive in to the very land Jonah was preaching repentance and salvation. Therefore Ophir had to bring goods to Israel instead which we see in Jonah's story. The ships of Tarshish were certainly trading in Israel again traveling the long way around Africa to the port at Joppa (Jn. 1:1-13) as did the There Kings after Messiah's birth in about 6 B.C. or so.

pg. 136

Tim does not explicitly write that the Greeks were sailing "the long way around Africa" to the Philippines but that is implied when he writes:

The Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold and silver roughly around 800-150 B.C. and Mela retained this from the "olden writers" of Greece.

p.43

Funny that Mela nowhere indicates the islands of Indonesia in his description of the world despite getting his information from "olden writers." Did they not know about Sumatra, Java, and Borneo? In the map above Tim has the Malay Peninsula blocked out with the caption reading:

This area missing from most first century maps. Most cartographers and historians melt India bleeding into China. Indochina and Malaysia are not even there. This must be taken into account in order to interpret

This note does not explain anything. It does not answer the big question of why they aren't there if the Greeks sailed right past them to get to the Philippines and thus necessarily knew of their existence! The answer is simple, no ancient Greeks ever sailed to the Philippines. 

Tim writes on page 130 that the Phoenicians were careful sailors who hugged the coasts and did not stray into the open ocean. 
The Phoenician merchants were very conservative which is why they were the best in their era. They did not wreck often because they hugged the coasts and only sailed in the daytime avoiding obstacles hard to see at night. 
pg.130
He also claims that the Greeks inherited their maritime routes and knowledge from the Phoenicians. If that is the case and they sailed to the Philippines hugging the coasts along the way then there should be ancient maps and directions showing and describing the Strait of Malacca, the Malay Peninsula, and Indonesia. Are we really to believe that sailors such as the Phoenicians and Greeks failed to notice those places? Such maps do not exist because, as Herodotus notes, the known extent of the world to the east was India.

The sentence from page 43 implies the Greeks circumnavigated Africa because, as Tim mentions in the paragraph from page 136, the Red Sea port was broken. Even if it weren't broken the Greeks did not control that territory so it would have been impossible for them to sail out of that port.  


But the fact is NO ONE was making that journey. No one was circumnavigating Africa on a regular basis. Just because Herodotus records the Phonecians doing it once at the command of Pharaoh does not prove it was a regular shipping route. Read "The Circumnavigation of Africa" by Ciaran Branigan for more information. It is only 5 pages long because that's how little history there is of ancient mariners making that trip. 

When The God Culture was asked if they would "direct me to more information about the Filipinos and Greeks trading with each other by sailing around Africa" I was given the terse reply:

We will not be expanding a chapter of our book just released now in email form. Yah Bless.

I  am supposed to trust these guys to interpret a vast amount of information concerning the ancient Greeks yet they can't even understand my brief email. I did not ask them to expand on a chapter. All I wanted was a few links and to be pointed somewhere for more information but they refused to provide anything which would back up their claims. That's because they do not have such information as it does not exist. Their claim that Greeks and Filipinos were circumnavigating Africa for trade is a lie. 


Herodotus indicates Ethiopia is the furthest land south anyone knew. From Book 3.114 of The History of Herodotus:

As one passes beyond the place of the midday, the Ethiopian land is that which extends furthest of all inhabited lands towards the sunset. This produces both gold in abundance and huge elephants and trees of all kinds growing wild and ebony, and men who are of all men the tallest, the most beautiful and the most long-lived.

He mentions no lands farther south than Ethiopia because the Greeks did not know of them. He does not even believe there is an ocean which encircles the earth! From Book 4.8 of The History of Herodotus:

Thus say the Scythians about themselves and about the region above them; but the Hellenes who dwell about the Pontus say as follows:—Heracles driving the cattle of Geryones came to this land, then desert, which the Scythians now inhabit; and Geryones, says the tale, dwelt away from the region of the Pontus, living in the island called by the Hellenes Erytheia, near Gadeira which is outside the Pillars of Heracles by the Ocean.—As to the Ocean, they say indeed that it flows round the whole earth beginning from the place of the sunrising, but they do not prove this by facts.

If the Greeks were circumnavigating Africa for trade with the Philippines one would think Herodotus would be well-informed about the existence of a worldwide ocean. After all he did take note of the best Grecian sailors, the Phocaians. From the Histories Book 1.163:

Now these Phocaians were the first of the Hellenes who made long voyages, and these are they who discovered the Adriatic and Tyrsenia and Iberia and Tartessos: and they made voyages not in round ships, but in vessels of fifty oars.

If the Phocaians were the first to make long voyages and Herodotus did not believe in the existence of a worldwide ocean then it stands to reason that no Greeks were rowing their boats the long distance from Greece to the Philippines. If they were Herodotus would certainly have known of such voyages and the existence of the worldwide ocean.


"The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World" illustrates what Herodotus means by India being the furthest land known to the east.

The territories spanned by Map 5 experienced only limited contacts with the classical world, and represent the easternmost reaches of reliable Greek and Roman geographical knowledge. Until the first century A.D., they were known almost exclusively through the account of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy to the Mauryan imperial court. Even at the peak of commercial contacts with the West, they showed few traces of Greek or Roman settlement, and– with the exception of Menander’s brief foray into the Ganges Valley c. 175 B.C.–none of conquest. Moreover, by the second century A.D. Western knowledge of their geography reached its zenith, since later works neither added new information nor even reproduced more than a fraction of the knowledge previously accumulated. By the third century, to judge by this trend as well as by the pattern of coin finds, contacts were declining in step with the fortunes of the Roman empire; by the fourth century, contact appears to have been confined largely to Sri Lanka.

pg.58

The Greeks never went to the Philippines. They never traded with the Philippines. It is impossible that they ever did because their knowledge of the East did not extend past India. That is a fact of history. The maps Tim uses to say otherwise reveal this fact in stark detail as there is no Indonesia. 

If Tim wants to prove the Greeks were regularly rowing their Triremes to the Philippines around Africa engaged in a bustling trade in gold and silver he's going to have to actually prove it and not just assert it by saying "that makes sense" and giving wrong directions to a mythical island of gold based on Greek maps as if that surmounts any of the problems he is facing regarding the Greek's lack of knowledge of Indonesia. There is too much he passes by without discussing and that is very problematic. For his case to be "monumental" it should also be thorough. As it stands there is much information Tim does not care to sift through and discuss.

However he is eager to bring up superfluous information like the Behaim Globe of 1492 which contains mythical locales like St. Brendan's Isle and the Dragon's Tail. Tim believes that the Greeks lost the exact location of Chryse and that the thinking of where this island lay progressed over time. We see this on Behaim's Globe where Chryse and Argyre have been placed in the vicinity of the Philippines. This leads Tim to utter absurdity as he really thinks Behaim has found and mapped out the Philippines.

An actual map of the Philippines vs The God Culture's map of the Philippines

NOTE: Not only is Chryse beginning to take the geographic form of Luzon in 1492 on maps especially at the top but Argyre appears in the shape of Mindanao. Both are Northeast of Malaysia. That's called Philippines. SW of Luzon appears as Iloilo in shape The writing to the right under Japa by a red island similar in shape of Negros or Leyte is identified as an isle of Gold and Spices. Thilis, the famed Isle of Pearl is above Luzon likely inappropriately as it is more likely Palawan where the largest pearls are found. It was never Bahrain. SW of Argyre/Mindana the German text identifies the Magnetic Islands of Maniola. Ptolemy propagated a legend that one could not travel with lead near these magnetic isles. Far more likely, this is a reference to Manila and the many shipwrecks on the dangerous shoals in the South China Sea on the way there. Behaim did not know where everything was but he knew Chryse and Argyre were in the S. Chine Sea NOT Malaysia. Behaim corrects all of Ptolemy's guesses in geogprahy further to the East because they were not Malaysia as knowledge increased. Magellan, Pinto, Barbosa and the Portuguese especially knew better.

This passage speaks for itself as to its complete ridiculousness. How anyone could think that jumble of random shapes resembles the Philippines is beyond me.

Even though Tim haughtily looks downs his nose with contempt and disdain upon scholars and academicians all throughout this book, he still seeks their validation.

It is time for this to be taken seriously by those in authority, those in academia and those in the church.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=690346041525416&id=376627072897316

If Tim wants to be taken seriously then he needs to act seriously. He needs stronger arguments and a more irenic tone towards those who have gone before him. You can't despise scholars calling them liars and propagandists all the while using their research, say no one can disprove your own research, arrogantly proclaim that your book is a "great revelation amending modern scholarship", and expect to be taken seriously.

This is the end of my review of The God Culture's book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure." There is a lot of information in this book I did not touch on as it's a matter of space and strength of argument. The issues of etymologies and Chryse are the strongest arguments against Tim's theory. In summation this book is wanting and is by no means a "monumental case no one can disprove." The claim that Greeks and Filipinos circumnavigated Africa to trade with one another is certainly disprovable as it is an outright lie. But perhaps such historical inaccuracies ought to be overlooked as Tim has told us elsewhere in his videos that he is not proving an historical case.

"Remember one thing though. We are not proving an historical case here. That is not what this is. That is not what we ever claimed it to be. We are proving a multi-disciplined position with strong pose across-the-board. The reason our foundation is incredibly strong is because we set it in scripture and that is solid rock." 

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-god-culture-finding-chryse-dont.html

The rest of the book from chapters 16 to 21 are all mostly religious in nature. We are greeted with puerile prophetic interpretations such as the Philippines being mentioned in Isaiah because Filipinos love to sing.

This next prophecy is a Filipino prophecy to the core. Singing is not just something many enjoy, it is in their prophetic DNA. How did Isaiah know this?

Isaiah 42:10 KJV

Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.

Isaiah is speaking to the Philippines who love to sing and most do not know why. It is because singing is in their very prophetic DNA as a commonality. This is not one group but "the inhabitants thereof..." "all that is therein the isles." The Philippines will sing a new song from the throne room of Yahuah and it will not be karaoke. This is their calling. They are the isles who sing His praise at the ends of the Earth. 

pg, 249

I have not come across any bible prophecy interpretation this dumb since I reviewed The God Culture's Revelation 12 series. What is prophetic DNA? Is that kind of like midi-chlorians?

The best part of the book is the conclusion, chapter 21. In this chapter Tim wonderfully brings it all together and conjures up a fantastical view of history that is rather well-written compared to the rest of the book. However in the end his interpretation of the history of the Philippines as Ophir rests on the anti-Christian proposition that God's law will be restored in toto in the Philippines. Remember Timothy Jay Schwab and The God Culture are not only anti-trinitarian heretics but also teach the blasphemous and anti-Christian doctrine that faith in Christ is not enough, "the law is what redeems us." Tim is not as explicit here on this subject as he is elsewhere in his videos. Perhaps he is saving it for another book.

The God Culture: Understanding Pinto's Coordinates

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has finally responded to my articles about Fernando Pinto.  If you recall Fernando Pinto was shipw...