Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has a new 52-week study series about the apocrypha. It is based on his two-volume set of books which claims to test the apocryphal books. I have written an article on each volume showing forth Tim's awful and uneducated methods defending or rejecting the apocrypha (vol 1, vol 2). It is this method which I would like to further explore.
In a comment on this video Tim says one should follow his method to find out the truth.
@jawnatutorow: Ok, I have a question. If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?
@TheGodCulture: You mean Paul when on trial with his life in the hands of the Pharisees? Can you read? Are you really incapable of the comprehension of a child? When you try to quote a scripture, quote it and do so in context. First, Paul rebukes the Pharisees many times and the illiterate modern church thinks he is rebuking Moses when he taught Moses' Law but rebuked Pharisee application. Why do you think he ended up in front of them on trial? How do you not know? In this account you try to cite inaccurately in context, Paul invokes he was a Pharisee by birth thru his father likely, yet he was a Hebrew thru his mother which are 2 different things if you new how to read Paul. If he did not show respect to the Pharisee ruler publicly especially when in chains and on trial in front of them, which is rather sad to think you do not know any of Paul's story it appears, he would be dead far earlier. Paul was not stupid. How is it you do not know that is the actual question here? Some of them still wish to kill Paul even so but understand he publicly covered himself by showing respect for what was a recognized position though Paul well knew the Pharisees were fakes. He warns of their Jewish Fables and endless genealogies in 1 Timothy 4. Read all of that chapter and he lays out the Pharisees guilty of old wives' fables as well. In 2 Timothy 4, he predicts many will fall for these Jewish fables of the Pharisees. In Titus 1:14, Paul says: " Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." The real question here is how is that you think that his rebuking the Pharisees accusing them of propagating the commandments of men and lies turning men away from the truth somehow equals his endorsing their righteousness when he never did. Yes, when on trial, he invokes his Roman citizenship by birth, his Pharisee bloodline from his father, his Hebrew blood from his mother, and his learning from a very famous Pharisee at a young age in his defense while on trial. His defense was accurate and it worked that time especially. However, you see that as his endorsing those he rebuked? Really? This is an extremely illiterate way to read anything. Follow the method on this channel and you will learn to fix this. Attempt further debate in ignorance as you certainly do not know Paul and do not represent his words, be muted. Our channel, our rules. Yah Bless.
I want to analyze this comment and response and show that the method used by Timothy Jay Schwab is only going to lead one into ignorance.
@jawnatutorow: Ok, I have a question. If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?
Now, this person echos the very same question I have said about Tim's assertion that the Pharisees were impostors. Nowhere in the scripture does Jesus, or in this case Paul, ever condemn them for being impostors. They are condemned for hypocrisy but never for being Samaritan impostors. It's a deadly blow to Tim's claims.
But watch how he uses his method to make the question irrelvant. I am going to take this a section at a time. Someone should tell Tim to punch the enter button once in a while and start a new paragraph. There is no need for unreadable blocks of text.
@TheGodCulture: You mean Paul when on trial with his life in the hands of the Pharisees? Can you read? Are you really incapable of the comprehension of a child? When you try to quote a scripture, quote it and do so in context.
The very first part of Tim's method is to mock and ridicule the commenter. This is the same method he uses when discussing the work of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. They are dismissed as illiterate buffoons.
First, Paul rebukes the Pharisees many times and the illiterate modern church thinks he is rebuking Moses when he taught Moses' Law but rebuked Pharisee application. Why do you think he ended up in front of them on trial? How do you not know?
The second part of Tim's method is to twist facts and erect straw men. It is true that Paul rebukes the Pharisees but it is NOT true that the Church thinks or teaches Paul rebuked Moses. That is simply nonsense. Paul says very clearly he upholds the law but at the same time he is very adamant that the law leads us to Christ and because Christ is come it is now done away with. That is why the Church does not teach the law of Moses except insofar as it leads men to Christ. We are no longer under the law but under grace. That dichotomy of law versus grace, of the old versus the new covenant, is Christianity 101.
In fact, Paul did not end up on trial for rebuking the Pharisees but because the Jews thought he brought a Gentile into the temple and that he was teaching against the law.
Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.
Acts 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
See that? The charges have NOTHING to do with Paul rebuking the Pharisees. In fact the Pharisees were ready to let Paul go when he spoke of the resurrection!
Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
Tim calls this commenter illiterate but one must really wonder about his reading skills.
In this account you try to cite inaccurately in context, Paul invokes he was a Pharisee by birth thru his father likely, yet he was a Hebrew thru his mother which are 2 different things if you new how to read Paul.
The third part of Tim's method is to apply to the enemies of Christ twisted and ridiculous bloodlines. In his view everyone who is not with Christ is a nephilim of some variety. Here we see Tim referring to the Pharisees as some sort of bloodline different from that of the Hebrews. The fact is the Pharisees were a SECT of Judaism which has nothing to do with genetics. There are NO genetic Pharisees just like there are no genetic Catholics, Buddhists, or Muslims.
If he did not show respect to the Pharisee ruler publicly especially when in chains and on trial in front of them, which is rather sad to think you do not know any of Paul's story it appears, he would be dead far earlier. Paul was not stupid. How is it you do not know that is the actual question here?
The fourth part of Tim's method is to take a familiar Bible story and twist it all out of proportion. In his hands Jonah is no longer swallowed by a fish as the text actually says but he was swallowed by Leviathan and taken all the way around Africa. In this story Paul knew these Pharisees were fakes but deferred to them as being legitimate in a cowardly bid to save his life. Just look at how Tim defames Paul by calling him a dissimulating liar who was looking out to save his life rather than die for the truth as he proclaims he is ready to do in his letters. Incredible.
Some of them still wish to kill Paul even so but understand he publicly covered himself by showing respect for what was a recognized position though Paul well knew the Pharisees were fakes. He warns of their Jewish Fables and endless genealogies in 1 Timothy 4. Read all of that chapter and he lays out the Pharisees guilty of old wives' fables as well. In 2 Timothy 4, he predicts many will fall for these Jewish fables of the Pharisees. In Titus 1:14, Paul says: " Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
This is more of Tim's fourth method. Now 1 Timothy becomes a warning against the Pharisees. In fact, according to Tim most of what Paul writes is against the Pharisees because they were the main number one enemy then and now. Case in point Tim says that Paul only knew the false Pharisee way of keeping the law and he had to relearn how to keep it the correct way.
30:22 However Paul kept the Pharisee law in his teachings back then but Pharisee teachings. Ok? Those do not attribute to him keeping the actual law because the Pharisee law is not the law. Therefore having been a Pharisee it did not mean Paul understood the law or the Bible any better than anyone else. He would have to relearn, really unlearn first, and then relearn the entire law because they had leavened pretty much all of it and turned it against, so Paul was learning really a new law when you think about it.
It is simply false that Paul had to relearn the correct way to keep the law. As a Pharisee of the Pharisees he kept it quite correctly and he taught, especially in Galatians and Hebrews, that the law had passed away because it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ had come.
The real question here is how is that you think that his rebuking the Pharisees accusing them of propagating the commandments of men and lies turning men away from the truth somehow equals his endorsing their righteousness when he never did. Yes, when on trial, he invokes his Roman citizenship by birth, his Pharisee bloodline from his father, his Hebrew blood from his mother, and his learning from a very famous Pharisee at a young age in his defense while on trial. His defense was accurate and it worked that time especially. However, you see that as his endorsing those he rebuked? Really? This is an extremely illiterate way to read anything.
Here we several of Tim's methods come to the fore. There's the nonsense about Pharisee bloodlines, there's calling the commenter illiterate, and we also have Tim misrepresenting the original question.
The commenter did not say Paul endorsed the righteousness of the Pharisees. That is NOT the question. What the commenter asked is:
If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?
There is not a single word about endorsing their righteousness. What is being endorsed is their position as leaders and teachers of Israel and especially the High Priest being legitimate.
Here is what Paul says in Acts 23:
1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Jesus says much the same thing.
Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Jesus rebukes the Pharisees but he NEVER calls them impostors. He says they "sit in Moses' seat" and are thus the legitimate rulers and judges of Israel. That is the issue here and Tim simply does not want to deal with it honestly.
Follow the method on this channel and you will learn to fix this. Attempt further debate in ignorance as you certainly do not know Paul and do not represent his words, be muted. Our channel, our rules. Yah Bless.
Finally Tim concludes his non-answer to the question as to why Paul did not call the Pharisees impostors. He says following his method will lead to right conclusions and then he warns the commenter to not comment again "in ignorance" or he will be muted. And what it Tim's method? It is:
1. Insult the inquirer.
2. Misrepresent the question.
3. Twist the scriptures.
4. Reduce everything to bloodlines.
5. Warn any inquirer to never ask a hard question again or else be muted.
That no method to get to the truth. It is a method to conceal the ignorance of Tim who cannot be bothered by hard facts which prove his teachings to be false. This method is used in all his videos, books, and comments. If you are interested in truth don't follow this method and certainly do not follow Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture.
