Timothy Jay Schwab of The God has finally given his fullest treatment of the True Church to date in the form of 3 videos. I will be taking these videos one at a time and summing them up in one go. Let me be clear that I do not want to get bogged down in details. I am looking for the big picture. That means only the most important details will be noted here. Practically all of what Tim has to say in these videos has been said in his book Rest: The Case for Sabbath and in his other videos.
 |
In this first video Tim sets up his thesis. The only True Churches according to the Bible are the seven church of Asia. That means Rome, Galatia, Carthage, Corinth, Alexandria, and everywhere else except Antioch are out. None of those places are the True Church. Thomas made it all the way to India but that is also out because it's not listed in the Book of Revelation.
4:48 In the first chapters of the book of Revelation Yahushua is speaking and he identifies seven ecclesias that are his. That's what he says. Those are his words. No one can dispute that. Some are better than others, of course, in terms of following his commandments but nevertheless he calls them his ecclesias to which angels are in charge of each. They are the continuation of the next generation of ecclesias at the end of John's life and after the other apostles were mostly gone.
Now, you might think, "Rome does not have a True Church? Paul wrote his most important epistle to them." Yeah, well you see Priscilla and Aquila were kicked out of the Roman Church for keeping the feasts and Sabbath. It had nothing to do with them being Jews as the Bible says. In fact the true Roman Church was exiled from Rome for the most part.
9:48 They passed those practices on to the next generation but Rome didn't get it nor did the origin of what we call the Catholic Church. Why? Well, they are not his ecclesia period. Uh, in fact if you look at Rome yes there's a, there's an ecclesia in Rome, Priscilla and Aquila, but then you find them they actually were exiled from there. Um, so they're back in Asia Minor operating amongst the ecclesias that are mentioned in Revelation. So, uh, you can't, you can't use that one reference out of context and say oh no the church was in Rome. No, whoa, whoa, the Church was exiled from Rome largely. It doesn't mean there weren't pockets still of course there, I'm certain there were but uh as a whole and with the power of what the Catholic Church came out of get out of here that is outrageous.
What is outrageous is for this overweight, bespectacled, Hey Joe, white saviour to say the Church was exiled from Rome in circa 50 AD!! Paul wrote a lengthy epistle to the Romans. He longed to see them and he even appealed his case to Nero just so he could go to Rome and visit the Church to whom he wrote.
What does it even mean the Church was exiled from Rome? Tim does not say. The fact is Priscilla and Aquila were JEWS and Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome!
Acts18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
The Church was not exiled from Rome. The JEWS were exiled from Rome. And not only that but at some point later they returned to Rome and Paul mentions them at the end of his famous epistle.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus
For all his boasting about 30 plus years in the ministry Timothy Jay Schwab sure does not know his Bible.
 |
| After The Apostles: Part 2. 2-3 Centuries Later. What was the True Ekklesia? |
In part 2 Tim dives into the Quartodeciman controversy and cites the testimony of Polycrates via Eusebius. In the early Church the correct date to celebrate Easter or the resurrection was a very contentious debate. Polycrates was the Bishop of Ephesus and he says he followed the teachings handed down by the Apostle John. Tim says that is also what we must do.
6:15 So, commanded to sacrifice the lamb should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passover. Notice the Savior's Passover. They got that. How could, I mean, how could that even be in question, right? Messiah was taken on the Passover, he was crucified the next day, which is the first day of unleavened bread the same Sabbath really the same day on the, uh, the calendar of the feast which begins at sunset which is a rare thing for feasts and and for the Bible as the biblical day begins at sun rise we prove. But it was not the custom of the Churches in the rest of the world! Oops! You realize he just rebuked the entire Catholic Church in origin. They weren't called that yet perhaps but as against scripture. This is so clear but the bishops of Asia, modern Turkey, led by Polycrates of Ephesus, remember one of the seven ecclesias, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. By whom? The apostles. Duh! Which are we supposed to practice? Think about it. Are we not to follow the example of the Apostles and Messiah? Are we not to be preaching the gospel they preached or it's another strange gospel is it not?
How bright and shining is this man's ignorance. I am going blind every time I listen to him speak. According to Timothy Jay Schwab only the testimony from Polycrates is valid. Forget about the fact that other churches said they received a different tradition from the other Apostles. Here is "the rest of the story" from Eusebius.
A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.
I am not going to discuss the Easter controversy here but it is important to note that both traditions of holding the feast on the Lord's Day and keeping it along with the Jews extend back to the Apostles. Both traditions are Apostolic. Therefore keeping the Passover along with the Jews is not an exclusive sign of the True Church. Tim does not mention this at all because he has never even read Eusebius but is quote mining from the Seventh Day Adventists. He does not get into the controversy at all or tell us what the issues were and why it matters except to assume that Asia Minor is correct and the rest of the Church world is wrong. This is proof positive Timothy Jay Schwab is completely ignorant of the history of the early Church and is only seeking to confirm his Christless, graceless, nomian theology.
 |
In the third video Tim mentions the council of Laodicea which forbade the people from celebrating the Sabbath in the Jewish manner.
14:52 Uh, can you find other sources to say different things? Of course you can. You can always find propaganda. It's easy to do that. Then you could go and write a blog about all the propaganda because you're too stupid to read it and understand the difference. Well, you know what? It's time for us to see past such illiteracy.On the council of Laodicea, what an appropriate place for such decrees to come out of. Uh, basically a Satanic occult gathering that's what it really is, of catholic leadership, never biblical. They had no authority and they were not his ecclesia we've well proven. No Catholic counsel ever had any bible authority period. Not to change books, not to add to books, not to change doctrines, not to assess what doctrines are this or that because the track was already established and they changed it. They changed the word. From the apostles time until the Church the council of Laodicea which was about the year 364 the holy observation of the Jews. Now, that's really, it's the biblical one, uh, forget the Jews that's again a fraud word uh of the Hebrews. Yeah, okay? Sabbath continued. Okay so they continue to observe the Saturday Sabbath is what it's saying. As may be proved out of many authors and again there are many, I mean many, many and we could go through many such, uh, accounts.
I like how Tim starts off by taking a dig at me and this blog. He's the one who is quote mining and has never actually read the Church Fathers or any of the canons or decrees of the councils. I find it interesting that Tim says the Church has no authority to come together to "assess what doctrines are this or that." This man's catchphrase is "prove all things" and he is literally saying the Church has no authority to prove all things! Apparently the Church is supposed to accept every kind of teaching including heresy.
It's also funny that Tim does not actually cite any canon from Laodicea but instead cites John Ley.
This is a citation from Tim's book Rest: The Case For Sabbath and its source is a bit mangled. Tim lists two books from which this quote can be found. The first one is Book XX of Antiquities of the Christian Church which I happen to own and am currently reading through. John Ley is nowhere cited in its pages. I can guarantee Tim has not read this book but let's be generous and tell him exactly why the early Church kept the Sabbath.
If it be inquired, why the ancient church continued the observation of the Jewish sabbath, when they took it to be only a temporary institution given to the Jews only, as circumcision and other typical rites of the law ; (which is expressly said by many of the ancient writers, particularly by Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Tertullian, Eusebius " to name no more ;) it is answered by learned men', that it was to comply with the Jewish converts, as they did in the use of many other indifferent things, so long as no doctrinal necessity was laid upon them." For the Jews being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself, as the memorial of his rest from the work of creation, settled by their great master, Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. For this reason, it seemed good to the prudence of those times, (as in other of the Jewish rites, so in this,) to indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the sabbath as a day for religious offices, viz. public prayers, reading of the Scriptures, preaching, celebration of the sacraments, and such like duties." But when any one pretended to carry the observation of it further, either by introducing a doctrinal necessity, or pressing the observation of it precisely after the Jewish manner, they resolutely opposed it, as introducing Judaism into the Christian religion. For this reason, the Ebionites were condemned for joining the observation of the sabbath" according to the law of the Jews, with the observation of the Lord's day after the manner of Christians. Against such the council of Laodicea pronounces anathema, that is, such as taught the necessity of keeping the sabbath a perfect rest with the Jews. And in this sense we are to understand what Gregory the Great says, That antichrist will renew the observation of the sabbath. He must needs mean the observation of it after the Jewish manner: since in the Christian way it was observed as well by the Latin church as the Greek; only with this difference, that the Latins kept it a fast, and the Greeks a festival.
Now, I know Tim will kick against the pricks and say that is NOT the testimony of the True Church and you know that is odd because Laodicea is one of the seven Churches in Asia and Tim calls the Council of Laodicea a Satanic gathering. How did Laodicea go from being a True Church to being a Satanic gathering? Tim does not say but undoubtedly it's because they said something he doesn't like.
The Council of Laodicea did not say to neglect the Sabbath altogether.
Canon 16: The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.
The canon forbidding keeping the sabbath like a Jew is as follows:
Canon 29: Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
But because Tim has never actually read the canons of Laodicea he does not know about any of that. He spouts off like he knows something about what the early Church believed, taught, and decreed but the reality is he is an ignorant putz.
It's just so tiresome having to listen to this nonsense. Tim has no idea what he is talking about. He limits the True Church to the seven Churches listed in Revelation as if that is the end all be all of Churches. According to Tim Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem, none of those cities have True Churches because they are not mentioned explicitly by Jesus in the New Testament. That kind of reasoning is insane. Jesus said go into all the world and that is exactly what the Apostles did. Thomas made it all the way to India!
Despite his railing against the Church and insisting that the True Church kept the Sabbaths and Feasts and the Mosaic law generally Tim offers no proof for such a Church existing. He does not even attempt to prove that there is an unbroken chain of Churches keeping the law from the Apostles until now. He is in effect calling Jesus Christ a liar.
Oddly enough in part 2 he hints that the priesthood is still viable!
11:21 And moreover John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, uh, and being a priest wore this sacradotal plate. Wait, what? I, I, you know, I get hung up on that because John the Apostle he equates basically to him being in the priesthood. Whether he literally wore such, uh, you know a priestly plate or not, uh, I don't know. Uh, guess is that he's talking, uh, you know basically, um, in analogy here, uh, you know but you don't know that. Notice this concept through though of the priesthood continues in the new testament. Hmm. In the Apostles. How about that?
What is this man smoking? If John is a priest and Polycrates a Bishop that means the Church in Ephesus was ORGANIZED. It means the Church in Ephesus was not 2 or 3 people meeting in someone's living room. It means Tim is WRONG when he says the church is not an organization.
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
But what does the Church community matter anyway when Tim says personal relationship is paramount? From part 1:
37:57 There is no justification for a Catholic Church nor really even Protestant for that matter. Even the word church we discussed. There is relationship with Yahusha and Yahuah through his word and his word says to keep the feasts and sabbaths and commandments.
The sources for this video all come from his book Rest: The Case For Sabbath. I have previously noted that, based on that book, Tim certainly has no idea what the Church Fathers or early Church taught. He takes all the early documents, quote mines them from secondhand sources, and basically dumps all over them calling them frauds and Satanic because they don't say keep the Sabbath and Feasts. Tim wants everyone to keep the law. He wants everyone in the tent fornicating with Hagar.
No comments:
Post a Comment