My initial review of Timothy Jay Schwab's new book Rest: The Case for Sabbath focused primarily on the foundational arguments for his case. The evidence shows that Timothy does not understand the nature of Jesus Christ's priesthood, the nature of the law and what Paul had to say about it, or the nature of our salvation in and through Jesus Christ by grace through faith alone. Having examined Timothy's rotten theological foundation I now want to take a look at other things that are in this book.
Page 7 of this book says it is available at RestCase.org but that is a lie. The actual website for this book is RestSabbath.org. The fact that he changed the website but did not change the book to match is hilarious because now it contains a pretty big error that will throw unknowing readers off track. Of course there is no content to speak of on the website so I suppose it doesn't matter much.
Timothy Jay Schwab strung along his viewers for two months saying this book was soon the be published when it was already published on Amazon on August 8th and for free on Issu also in early August. The free e-book is at Issu and not at RestSabbath.org. Tim could have had people downloading and reading this book, which he claims is very important, in August but he waited till October 1st to notify his viewers where it could be obtained. Why did he engage in such deception? Because he wanted to make a big to-do and officially release the book on the Day of Atonement. So, not only are the contents of this book a lie but so is the public releasing of it.
But let's get started on the awful dreck that forms the contents of this book. Download the free PDF and follow along.
First up let's look at some of the many strawman arguments in this book. A strawman argument is defined as follows:
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/
Here are three of the many strawmen arguments in this book.
This Fourth Commandment is the one that the church seems to take issue. Generally, the other 9 seem palatable to them but do not dare tell the church it is supposed to rest for a day in the presence of Yahuah.
pg. 52
The Church does not follow the Fourth Commandment? That's a flat out lie. The Church has one day a week, often more, where they meet and worship together. Sunday worship is based on the Fourth Commandment. All one has to do is read their writings to learn that fact. The Church never, ever says one can ignore the Fourth Commandment. Tim makes this argument because the Church does not worship on the Sabbath. He is presenting his opponent's side dishonestly.
Knowing that Messiah kept the Sabbath as His custom was, there are those scholars and especially seminaries that teach that Messiah then broke the Sabbath.
pg. 103
Who says Jesus broke the Sabbath? Which theologian, Church, Seminary, or Pastor teaches Jesus broke the Sabbath? Without names this is just an empty claim. I have never, ever heard any theologian or minster assert such a thing. Tim is literally making up arguments to rail against. It's a ludicrous lie and another strawman argument.
 |
| pg. 137 |
The title of this chapter as well as its content is another strawman. No one says Paul HATED THE LAW. But they do say, along with Paul, that the law leads us to Christ and that it is passed away. That righteousness does not come from the law. This chapter title is a misleading and loaded question that distorts and misrepresents the position actually held by the Church for the past 2,000 years.
Throughout this book Timothy condemns "scholars" for their wrong opinions but fails to cite any scholars or theologians or give their arguments. For the most part his arguments are fallacious strawmen. No one makes the claims he is making on their behalf. At least I have not heard anyone make them. Why doesn't he cite any scholars or theologians? Why does he not engage with actual arguments?
Timothy has been a minster since his teens which means he's been deep in the Bible for 40 years now. He's seen it all. And what does Tim say is the most important issue of our time? Well, it's not YOUR salvation. Timothy Jay Schwab says it's rather selfish to think about your own salvation.
One will observe like David and Paul, the prophets endear the Commandments, the Law and the Sabbath. It was not about their desiring to be saved though as that is a selfish aim of the modern church.
In our era, this is one of the most important topics, not your salvation.
pg. 51-52
What kind of minister of the Gospel would vomit forth such vile words saying keeping the sabbath is more important than your salvation? A minister of Satan that's who. Allow the Apostle Peter to rebut this murderer of souls.
Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Not only is seeking one's own salvation selfish and unimportant but so is making creeds. In fact, according to Tim, making a creed or a mission statement is Masonic.
So how then do we govern ourselves? Who do we follow? What church do we attend? Is there a denomination that gets this right?
You will never find denominations in scripture. His ekklesia cannot be broken into such. In our age, there are a Remnant of believers only. It is not 1.5 billion but a few in terms of the population of the world. They are one and defined as keeping His commandments. Those come from the Bible as should all of our doctrine.
Any organization one enters is a creation of men. You will notice just about all of them attempt to boil down their theology into a Statement of Faith or Mission Statement of sort. These are meaningless as any Statement of Faith that does not include every letter of the Word is no such. The origin of such practice is freemasonry as the Bible never says to create a Statement of Faith. You will find every False Prophet comes from the church within and has a great resume and great sounding Mission Statement. That is Pharisaism not Bible. If one can whittle their faith down to a sentence or paragraph, they are extremely shallow.
pg. 416
One is extremely shallow "if one can whittle their faith down to a sentence or paragraph?" Statements of faith originate from Freemasonry? Someone inform Timothy about the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon. Nobody ever claimed that a statement of faith or a creed or confession contained EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE of belief. Not to mention the Bible is not a statement of faith. It is a book that requires interpretation and it is from that which our faith develops. Herman Bavinck has two paragraphs from his Reformed Dogmatics which rebukes the foolishness of Timothy in his dismissal of creeds as well as his rejection of the Church.
Holy Scripture is no dogmatics. It contains all the knowledge of God we need but not in the form of dogmatic formulations. The truth has been deposited in Scripture as the fruit of revelation and inspiration, in a language that is the immediate expression of life and therefore always remains fresh and original. But it has not yet become the object of reflection and has not yet gone through the thinking consciousness of the believer. Here and there, for example in the letter to the Romans, there may be a beginning of dogmatic development, but it is no more than a beginning. The period of revelation had to be closed before that of dogmatic reproduction could start. Scripture is a gold mine; it is the church that extracts the gold, puts its stamp on it, and converts it into general currency.
Processing the content of Scripture dogmatically, however, is not just the work of one individual theologian, or of a particular church or school, but of the entire church throughout the ages, of the whole new humanity regenerated by Christ. The history of dogma and dogmatics is therefore to be regarded as a mighty attempt to appropriate the truth of God revealed in Christ and to fully understand the essence of Christianity. In evaluating that agelong dogmatic labor, people have erred both to the left and to the right and in turn been guilty both of overestimation and underestimation. The history of church and dogma has been disdained by all schools of thought that in the name of Scripture opposed all creeds, by Socinians and Remonstrants, by rationalistic and supernaturalistic, mystical and “biblical” theologians.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs 116-117
Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture would definitely fall under the category of a ""biblical" theologian" despite being neither strictly biblical (he utilizes Jubilees and other pseudepigrapha) nor a theologian approaching anything like Christian orthodoxy. He thinks that the bare words of the text speak for themselves and that the meaning of the text is self-evident but this is not true. Even through his endeavors we see that the Scripture requires reflection and interpretation before it becomes an article of faith or belief. We do not only believe the bare words of the text but what they mean and there are many divergent meanings which is why there are many heretical groups like The God Culture. That is why there is a necessity of creeds and confessions. They help keep the Church focused and within the bounds of orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed is the tip of a large iceberg which stands as a bulwark against all heretical Titanics declaring, "You shall not pass."
It's clear that Tim has never entered into the rich and deep theology behind the creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries. The men who formulated them were not "extremely shallow." The works they produced on their own are erudite theological masterpieces which form the basis for the creeds and for the Church's belief, that is to say how the Church understands scripture. And they stand in a long line of interpreters stretching from Ignatius to Justin and on down to their time. The Church does not interpret scripture in a vacuum. If one does not understand the Trinitarianism of the Cappadocians then one cannot rightly understand the Nicene Creed.
How many people make up a proper church body? According to Tim the church is just "2 or more not thousands."
Hebrews even establishes that the ekklesia, which Messiah defined as 2 or more not thousands, exhort or minister to each other daily.
p. 352
Is 120 people too big?
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
How about 3,000?
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Does Tim not realize that thousands IS 2 or more? Maybe he cannot do math. Perhaps he is thinking of modern mega churches. Is he really unaware of the ancient churches of Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem each of which had hundreds if not thousands of faithful believers? What will he do with them? Oh, I know. He calls them false churches because they worship on the eighth day and not the seventh. The "TRUE EKKLESIA" worships on Saturday according to Tim. Find that church and then you find the true church. But there lies the rub.
One thing in this book Tim never ever does is draw a line through history showing us the trajectory of the sabbath keeping True Church©™. That's because there has only been one True Church and it has never been an exclusively Sabbath keeping Church. It started out meeting in the Synagogues celebrating both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but as the Church became less Jewish and more Gentile it abandoned the Synagogue and the Sabbath in favor of the Lord's Day alone. Tim cannot point to any literature or records or any testimony of any kind establishing the existence of a Sabbath keeping church for the past 2,000 years. Lest Tim say such evidence was suppressed and destroyed by the false Church and we do not have any, well, that is called the
Argument From Ignorance and simply would not hold water. The evidence does not exist because such a church never existed.
This book is not only a defense of keeping the seventh day Sabbath but also of keeping the Feasts. But how exactly is one to keep the feasts especially as every single feast involved sacrifices? Let's listen to Tim.
The Book of Hebrews which tells us to keep the Sabbath or we are a sign of unbelief, explains that Messiah’s sacrifice has replaced all sacrifices of animals for eternity. Some will claim these offerings will be reinstituted after the Day of Judgment but that is another doctrine of men as it is unnecessary according to scripture. Yes, He replaced the sacrifice but the sacrifice still occurred and no scholar dare say Messiah’s sacrifice passed away. This changes the Feast observances a little but really not that much. However, we are still to keep these Feasts and Sabbaths according to the only source credible on the topic – the Bible.
p. 387
Ok, so the sacrifice of Jesus replaced all sacrifices and now we don't have to sacrifice anymore but how do we keep the Feasts? Tim does not say. He only tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross "changes the Feast observances a little bit really not that much." What does that even mean!!? Take Passover. The central rite of that Feast is a sacrifice. How is Passover changed "a little but really not much" when the very essence of the Passover, a sacrifice, is done away with? How are we to keep Passover when the Bible says Jesus IS our Passover? Sickeningly enough Tim encourages his listeners to eat lamb on the Passover because that is "a neat thing."
For Passover, have a meal and there is no specific diet as we do not sacrifice lambs anymore and that was what was eaten. You do not need to serve lamb though a neat thing if you can. Spend time with your family and friends teaching them the Passover story from Exodus and Jubilees if you can, instead of Easter. Tell them of its origin and how Messiah is the Passover, Unleavened Bread, and the First Fruit from among the dead even matching those dates. Demonstrate to them that these events cannot be separated into a pagan feast but the celebration remains as it always was. The only change is we no longer need to sacrifice animals according to Hebrews 4 among other places.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=742925862934100&id=376627072897316
Fun fact, one cannot celebrate the Passover without sacrificing a lamb at the required spot by a priest. For Tim to suggest we can celebrate Passover properly without sacrificing is to do away with the entire Feast of Passover of which the central rite is to sacrifice a lamb. Tim has much to say about the Old Testament Feasts but nothing to say about the Gospel Feast. His silence is telling. The Passover is replaced with the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine, something of which I have never heard Timothy speak, even in his two-part
video series on Melchizedek whom he
identifies as Jesus Christ and who brought bread and wine to Abraham. No wonder he is silent about the Lord's Supper as he is more into Jewish feast keeping than Christian worship.
How about the Feast of Atonement? Again, the central rite is a sacrifice made by the High Priest inside the Holy of Holies. How has that Feast been changed "a little really but not much?" How does one keep Passover and the Day of Atonement with no temple and no High Priest? Tim does not say. All in all this is a completely worthless paragraph and chapter that tells us nothing. His video on the subject is equally worthless as his advice is simply to do no work just like the regular Sabbath. How will the Feasts be reinstated in full in the Philippines when they are not to be fully kept? Obviously there is no temple in Israel today so no actual need to go there although certainly visit that's fine. But we don't need that anymore. In fact watch our Solomon's Gold series and you will find His Holy of Holies on earth has always been permanently in the Garden of Eden which we locate in the Philippines. And the one in Israel was very temporary of course. Thus everyone should really travel to the Philippines for these feasts. How about that? Something to think about. And this is why we say that the Philippines is where they will reinstate these feasts in full especially.
For as much as Tim harps on the necessity of keeping the law he is very ignorant of what the law actually teaches. It says one has to sacrifice in order to properly keep the Feasts. That has never been abrogated. The non-abrogation of the law is something Tim constantly harps on. He continually reminds his audience that the law has not passed away and is still in effect. He seems to be too dumb to understand that would mean sacrifices are still in effect as Jesus said, not one jot or tittle would pass from the law till all things be fulfilled.
The law also contains more than Ten Commandments. As usual Tim disagrees.
However, so-called scholars actually take that Pharisee paradigm and attempt to apply it to those who keep the Sabbath and the Law. They will even bark; “Do you sacrifice?” James said Messiah’s blood covered all sacrifices. How could a New Testament scholar be so absurd as to even ask? They bellow: “Do you obey all 614 commandments?” The Bible only gives 10. Only the Pharisees would claim 10 equals 614. How could any so-called scholar not realize that is leaven that they apply to those keeping the Bible practice using the false Pharisee measure of ignorance? They act like Pharisees. Certainly the Bible offers additional detail in the days of Moses later as to how to apply the 10 Commandments. However, they cover everything period. They always have and they always will.
The same scholars will claim Jesus(Yahusha) replaced the 10 Commandments with 2 which is illiterate as those 2 are direct quotes from the Law of Moses not new. However, He answers Pharisees who attempt to entrap Him. He answers from the Law of Moses the 1st Commandment in exact language and part of the Law of Moses that tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves also truly covering at least 5 of the commandments in tone. Neither are new but these 2 sum up, He says, the whole of the Law which rests on those 2 principles. That does not sound so complicated as to bark about 614 Laws does it? You cannot break either of the 10 Commandments without breaking the 2. You also cannot break any of the additional detail of Torah in Law without breaking the 10 Commandments.
p. 273-274
According to Tim all the hundreds of laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy regarding treatment of slaves, cleanliness, sexual relations, inheritances, and sacrifices is just commentary on how to keep the Ten Commandments and the Ten Commandments rest on the two commandments of loving God and one's neighbor so there are really only two commandments and not 614 or even 10. How much more ridiculous can he be? Yes, Jesus said the law rests on the two commandments of loving God and one's neighbor but the 614 laws in the Torah are not commentary on how to keep the Ten Commandments. They are rules on how to build a functioning society. Which one of the Ten Commandments is expounded upon in the dietary laws? Or in the laws of leprosy? How about the laws about mold in the house, which of the Ten Commandments is that a commentary on?
How about this particular law:
Exodus 23:19 Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
This commandment is repeated three times at Ex 23:19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21. What does it mean and which of the Ten Commandments does it expound upon? It must be vey important as it is repeated thrice.
The standard interpretation is that milk and meat must not be mixed which is why Jewish houses have a kosher kitchen. But Tim apparently does not understand this law or the purpose of a kosher kitchen.
Some Jews generally have a separate kosher kitchen and a regular kitchen which means they do not keep kosher in the other kitchen.
p. 287
Tim could not be more wrong with this ridiculous statement. Jews always keep kosher and they do it in BOTH kitchens. One kitchen is for meat and the other is for all dairy products. Tim may call this interpretation of the law stupid because the law does not explicitly say one must separate milk and meat. However that is the entire point. The law must be interpreted.
One might suppose that all such questions ought to be resolved by each person separately, as a matter of individual conscience. But such an answer was not acceptable in ancient Israel. To begin with, the Bible itself requires that the Sabbath law be enforced, prescribing the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2). How could the courts decide who had violated this law unless what was forbidden was spelled out in all its particulars? Indeed, how could ordinary people know what might subject them to the death penalty and what not? Moreover, quite apart from the question of punishment, how could a person's own conscience reach a decision about the proper way to keep the Sabbath if what the Bible had to say on the subject seemed at times contradictory or even incomprehensible? Finally, conscience or not, ought there not to be some agreed standard of observance? If all people were free to determine the law for themselves, could the law truly be said to exist?
For all these reasons, the Sabbath laws, indeed, all biblical laws were the object of particular interpretive scrutiny. From a very early period, no doubt, a body of authoritative interpretations accompanied the various legal prescriptions given by God to Israel, and these are reflected here and there in the Bible itself as well as in contemporaneous and subsequent Jewish and Christian writings. The ten laws of the Decalogue alone gave rise to an impressive body of interpretation.
The Bible As it Was, James Kugel, pg. 386
Tim's entire mission is to restore Biblical Law in the Philippines and yet he continually disdains the law.
See it's time for this people of Ophir especially to learn the law and restore it just as their prophecies say they will. This is not some disjointed ADD approach it's very systematic and we're leading here because this is where the prophecies lead. We are teaching how to fulfill the very prophecies of Ophir. This is no minor task and as you can see we certainly do not take our role lightly. This is happening folks and the Philippines will rise. Many around the world will follow and they are already starting to join. We're almost there.
Notice, how entrenched Catholicism has forced itself in this land called the modern Philippines. They are there to defile the Sabbath as they hate it. They have always hated Yahuah’s ways and never represented it since their inception. However, the Philippines will be the first to shake off the Catholic Church in prophecy and condemn it and the New World Order even according to Messiah(Matt. 12:42), Isaiah(60:9) and Ezekiel(38).
The true Lord’s Day, Saturday, will be restored in this land in time as they restore His ways and His Laws. However, we all can look forward to this beginning in our own personal lives now. We can end this reign of terror from this Beast. Keep the Sabbath holy and restore the power of rest exposing their chaos in your life weekly.
pg. 364
How is Timothy Jay Schwab supposed to teach Filipinos to restore the law when he denies the content of the Torah? There are not only Ten Commandments or even just the two of loving God and neighbor. There are 614 laws in total and many of them require sacrifices. To proclaim that we can keep the whole law without sacrificing is to diminish the Law.
Deuteronomy 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.
22 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
If the Philippines is going to restore the seventh day Sabbath will Sabbath breakers be executed as the law demands? Is the Philippines going to establish cities of refuge for those who accidentally kill someone? But that law with its time of banishment is tied to the life of the High Priest and there is no more earthly High Priest. The same goes for the
ordeal of the bitter water for a woman accused of adultery which requires a priest to administer. See how the law is simply not tenable for any society to enact in our day? Will menstruating women be required to leave the home for as long as they are ritually impure? How shall a woman keep the law in redeeming her first born when, as even Tim rightly notes, sacrifices are done away with? The law is more than moral precepts and Feast Days. The Law is a code which directs every aspect of society. To keep the law properly one cannot take away from or add to it. That means one must sacrifice if one is to properly keep the Law.
It's not just Sabbath keeping Tim seeks to restore but also circumcision. You see, Paul, in his letter to the Galatians did not absolutely forbid circumcision. No, no, no. According to Tim he was writing against the Pharisee interpretation of circumcision which is that circumcision is salvation.
Understand circumcision is not genital mutilation as some would mischaracterize. It is a First Fruit Offering of the flesh of a male child. We even find medically, it is beneficial to most. What we don’t find even in the Law of Moses is that circumcision is salvation. It is not. It really is much like baptism in the same sense as it is something one does with their sons at a very early age of 8 days old. Thus the Apostolic leadership had a tough decision to make especially forcing Gentile men to now be circumcised. Ouch!
They render a very wise decision and Paul abides by it. He is not in the leadership at that time though he was praised by them in this meeting. They send Paul and Barnabas out with this message. Anyone claiming Paul then went against the Apostles in his teaching of circumcision is illiterate of scripture because the message he shared is exactly what they decided. Essentially, the Pharisee emphasis on circumcision was wrong in the first place as it is not salvation and the leadership chose to tell the Gentile men to focus on other issues which just so happen to reinforce the Law of Moses which James taught then and Paul also taught. Again, the Pharisees do not understand the Law of Moses. When they say to keep it, they refer to the legalistic application in which they have expanded. The Apostles did not agree with that but what they never do is say not to keep the Law of Moses. It doesn’t happen and this passage is certainly not saying so as James then, reinforces the Law of Moses.
p. 157
Circumcision is NOT a first fruit offering of the male child. It's a sign of God's covenant. That is basic Bible 101 and Tim can't even get that right. Ok, maybe it's a bit more advanced but after 40 years in the ministry he should know what the significance of circumcision is. Anyone who was not circumcised was excluded from the covenant.
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
So, yes circumcision was essential under the old covenant. Of course having your foreskin removed was no guarantee of one's salvation but it was a token that one was a member of God's covenant people. That is EXACTLY the same function as baptism. Baptism REPLACES circumcision as it is the entrance into the covenant.
Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
In the Philippines circumcision has been practiced for centuries, a custom likely adopted from the Muslims. It certainly does not derive from the Hebrews because Filipinos are not circumcised at 8 days but between the ages of 8 and 14 years. Filipinos do not practice that rite according to the scriptures which is another fact proving Filipinos are not Israelites as Timothy Jay Schwab claims. Being lovers of pork and shrimp Filipinos also do not follow the dietary laws. Tim wants those laws restored too. He does not bring that up in his book about the Sabbath but he does mention the dietary laws in many other places.
Marco De La Vega Yah bless, Good evening, I have a question, can we eat pork or shrimp, the unclean foods, I and my wife are reading Acts 10-15
it says all things are clean, are we reading this correctly, thank you.
The God Culture We will cover that in time. It's not about not allowed as much as the one who created those animals says they are not good for food. That never changed as Paul nor Peter actually says so and certainly did not reorder the anatomy of every unclean animal all of sudden no change the physiology of all mankind then and for all future generations which such illiterate readings require if one thinks. There is no changing what Yahuah calls unclean and we will cover this in time. Yah Bless.
"It's not about not allowed as much as the one who created those animals says they are not god for food?" Chapter and verse, please! There is no verse that says such a thing. We are never told pigs and rabbits are "not good for food." In fact both of those animals are very good for food. From bacon to rabbit stew to shrimp scampi all those unclean foods are indeed very good for food. The issue is that God forbids them. He never tells us why some animals are unclean but there is a large body of interpretation regarding that which basically compares the unclean animals to various bad habits and people types that we must avoid. Once again Tim is actually denigrating the law even while he says we must keep it. And good luck getting Filipinos/Israelites to stop eating pork and shrimp.
There is a lot more garbage in this book but I want to focus on one final thing. What day is the Lord's day?
 |
| pg. 357 |
Tim rightly notes that the term "Lord's Day" is used once in all of scripture in Rev 1:10. In his snide way Tim identifies the Lord's Day with the seventh day Sabbath.
The argument begins in a false paradigm. Should we keep the Lord’s Day or the Sabbath Day. It is like saying: Should we eat popcorn or corn that is popped. Anyone telling you the Lord’s Day is anything but the Sabbath is illiterate of scripture. Scripture uses the term once yet tells us Messiah is Lord of the Sabbath. No one can actually debate that. However, the mantra continues over possibly thousands of years.
p. 358
Illiterate is one of Tim's favorite words appearing 56 times in the book and many more times in his videos. If you don't believe the things he teaches then you are illiterate and know nothing about scripture. One thing Tim does not write in his book is that Lord's Day is an affectionate term for the Sabbath.
 |
|
Lanny Lubaton: I'm just curious, wondering: I 'know' the Lord's Day is Sabbath, He's the Lord of the Sabbath... But why is it Rev1:10 is expressed as "the Lord's Day", instead of sabbath? Almost, if not ALL, verses pertaining to it is CLEARLY described as sabbath. But this verse is unique...WHY?... Is something being inferred?... It could mean anything? (perhaps Judgment, End of Days, Rapture, 2nd Coming... coz John is witnessing it?). Until the Bible prove itself... it's Sabbath.
The God Culture: The thing is that is the only time the term is used in such terms. There is a Day of the Lord which is the Second Coming and not related to the day in which John was in the spirit which was Yahusha's day, Sabbath. Frankly, it is an affectionate term for the day and perfect really and indisputable as to which day he refers. Yah Bless.
Maybe Tim did not include this tidbit in his book because he realized how stupid and unsupportable from both history and scripture that nonsense is. The Lord's Day has always meant Sunday, the first day of the week, Resurrection Day. The fact that Tim teaches the novel doctrine that Jesus Christ rose on the Sabbath and not the first day of the week cannot detain us here. Refuting that position would take a book. Suffice to say early Christians always referred to the first day of the week on which they worshipped as the Lord's Day or the Resurrection Day. One of the earliest documents to note this is the Didache which was written around 74 AD and reflects a much earlier tradition. Revelation was written after 90 AD. It's a no-brainer that John was using established language of the Church when the wrote "I was on the Spirit on the Lord's Day." Early Christians would understand that to mean not the Sabbath but the first day of the week.
Quite frankly I am shocked at the contents of this book. This is supposed to be Timothy Jay Schwab's big, important theological statement that, as the cover says, no one can dispute. Yet it is poorly argued with many strawman arguments and it is not thorough as Tim neglects to cover very important verses which contradict him, namely 2 Cor 3:6 and Heb 7:12. Every page features a harangue against scholars (scholar or scholars or appears 161 times) as Tim spills a lot of ink calling them names rather than arguing against their actual positions. From the way he cites the Early Church Fathers it is obvious he is not familiar with them or that they celebrated both the Sabbath and Sunday as the Lord's Day. Rather than offer any real history about why the Church gradually stopped observing the seventh day Sabbath Tim resorts to invective calling the Church the Synagogue of Satan and falsely claiming that Constantine subverted the Church. He has no interest in understanding why the Church eventually neglected and rejected sabbath observance long before Constantine. He simply does not understand how the Church grew in its understanding of the Gospel and its proper relationship to the synagogue and the Law.
Tim's test for identifying the true Church is not their doctrine of Jesus Christ but whether or not they keep the seventh day Sabbath. The doctrine of who Jesus Christ is is very important and make no mistake, Tim does not know who He is. Listen to his heretical Christology.
"But he that said unto him," Who's that? Yahuah. "Thou art my son. Today have I begotten thee." Now we know Yahusha is the only begotten son meaning birthed in the flesh by a woman but he existed prior as he saith also in another place.
That is heresy. Jesus Christ being the only begotten son does not refer to his being "birthed in the flesh" by Mary but to His eternal sonship as he is eternally begotten from the Father. But this is no place to dive into the doctrine of His Eternal Generation. This heretical Christology is a direct result of Tim's denial of the trinity.
Tim's level of pride is through the roof as on the cover, as well as in the text and his videos, he claims no one can dispute or disprove the things he says. All the while I have done exactly that several times over. I have unmasked Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture for the liar and heretic that he is and I will continue to do so especially as it relates to the Philippines.
Given how ignorant the book and its author are both theologically and historically it is amazing anyone could call this trash "an education" and "a game changer." Yet that is what this deceived person does.
Jason Daves Just finished up “Rest The Case For The Sabbath”. Fantastic book!!! It’s like a Battleship pulling up to the boat dock… It’s hard to do conduct battle with that ship sitting in the canoe of ignorance and deception. That book is an EDUCATION, I highly recommend that book to anyone, it’s a game changer. I liked it so much that I bought 2 and I gave one to some family so they can get educated. Great video as always 👍 Keep them coming! Yah is good and blesses abundantly!
The God Culture That's awesome! Thank you. Yah Bless.
The sad thing is not so much that this man is deceived, there are millions of Mormons after all, but that Timothy Jay Schwab made a conscious decision to move to the Philippines in order to turn people away from the grace that is to be found in Jesus Christ alone apart from the Law. Timothy literally moved to this country with his twice divorced second wife, Anna Zamoranos, to murder the souls of Filipinos. This man is one of Timothy's many victims.
