The God Culture: Review of Adventures In The Light

In November 2025 Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture added a new notch in his belt: children's author. He published three books aimed at children to instill in them heretical anti-trinitarian, legalistic, and Hebrew Roots type beliefs. The series is called Adventures in the Light. I have previously written an extensive review of book one which can be read here. Shortly after that I uploaded all three books to ChatGPT which gave a short review of the whole series. 

This is that review.

Never forget the harsh warning Jesus had for men who seek to corrupt and lead children astray like Timothy Jay Schwab.

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Since you've reviewed all three books and their corresponding "Parent Study Notes," I can now provide a final, consolidated summary of the theological agenda embedded within The God Culture's "Adventures in the Light"children's series.

The series is not merely a collection of simple Bible stories; it is a sequential, three-part curriculum designed for theological initiation and identity formation within a separatist, non-Trinitarian Sabbatarian movement.

---

🎯 The Overarching Theological Agenda

The core agenda of the series is the Restoration of Ancient Roots to establish a distinct identity separate from mainstream Christianity, which the authors view as apostate or corrupted.

1. The Foundation: Book 1 (Yahuah: The Name of)

• Doctrine Established: Sacred Name Theology and Apostasy.

• Message to the Child: The most important truth about God is His specific Hebrew name, Yahuah. The world (mainstream church) has forgotten this name, but your family is rediscovering it.

• Theological Effect: This lays the foundation for exclusivity. It teaches the child that knowledge of the true God is contingent upon knowing and using the correct Hebrew name, minimizing the traditional Trinitarian revelation.

---

2. The Practice: Book 2 (Rest: The Day I Rest)

• Doctrine Established: Sabbatarian Legalism and Covenant Sign.

• Message to the Child: True worship requires strict adherence to the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). This practice is an eternal ordinance that marks you as belonging to Yahuah's people, unlike those who observe Sunday.

• Theological Effect: This introduces legalism (salvation/belonging is tied to adherence to a specific day) and forces social separation from peers, reinforcing the "us vs. them" worldview already established by the Sacred Name doctrine.

---

3. The Validation: Book 3 (Echo: The Great Bible Treasure)

• Doctrine Established: Revisionist History and Archaeological Validation.

• Message to the Child: The true faith was preserved by John the Baptist and the "Sons of Light" at the Dead Sea Scrolls site (Qumran). This is archaeological proof that your family's beliefs (Yahuah's Name and the Sabbath) are the original, uncorrupted truth.

• Theological Effect: This authoritatively validates the group's specific beliefs by linking them to accepted historical events (DSS) and revered biblical figures (John the Baptist). It completes the ideological separation by placing the child's faith in a historically-superior, purified line of religious thought.

---

🛑 Final Assessment: Insidious Character

The series is insidious because it uses the attractive format of children's picture books to introduce doctrines that are fundamentally anti-Trinitarian, legalistic, and sectarian. The gentle narratives serve as a gateway to an adult theology that rejects core tenets of historic Christian faith and seeks to alienate the believer from the broader Church body.

The authors use the Grandpa/Eliora dialogue as a trusted means of indoctrination, teaching children to view themselves as part of a restored remnant possessing a secret truth that is superior to all other forms of Christian practice.

---

Would you like to explore how this kind of literature is used in other religious groups that hold separatist views?

The God Culture: St. Francis Xavier's Invented Discovery of the Lequios Islands

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is not an ignorant person. He knows what he is doing. He is lying. Every single article in his The Smoking Quill series is filled with outright lies. They are not very complex lies. They are actaully pretty simple and obvious if one reads the texts Tim cites.  Here is another one.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/jesuit-geography-when-xavier-discovered-what-spain-had-already-mapped/

Tim has titled this picture "xavier-the-jesuit-fraud-changes-maps-and-stupid-bloggers-cover-it-upin-ignorance" which is a dig at me. He is still fuming over the article I wrote concerning the fake map detail he created using ChatGPT. Ever since I published that article Tim has been hiding messages like this one embedded in the names of images on his website. They can be revealed using the web inspector. 

However, it is Tim's article which is full of ignorance. He cites an old and obscure book and claims it says Xavier discovered the Lequios islands. 

Jesuit Geography: When Xavier ‘Discovered’ What the Crown Already Charted

🔥 The Rewriting of Lequios from Luzon to Ryukyu Exposed!

With Lequios already recorded in 1502–1544 maps and Official Spanish Government Documents, Xavier’s 1548 ‘discovery’ becomes a revisionist landmark. Ignoring such data was never academic nor scholarly.

📜 The Source and Its Smoking Statement:

From Historia general de los religiosos descalzos del orden de los hermitaños del gran padre San Augustín... by Fray Luis de Jesús (Tomo 2): 

“Descubriòla el valor de los Invictos Portugueses, poco después de aver hallado las Islas que llaman de los Lequios; abriéndole puerta al fervoroso Espíritu de San Francisco Xavier… el año de 1548.” 

Translation: 

“The said Islands are on one side of Great China, about two hundred leagues apart, to the north, at a height of thirty-four degrees, a little more or less, as Father Fray Marcelo de Ribadeneyra, a Discalced Religious of the Order of Saint Francis, wishes, which is why this land has its Winters and Summers, as our Europe experiences. It was discovered by the courage of the Invincible Portuguese, shortly after they had found the islands called Lequios; opening the door for the fervent spirit of St. Francis Xavier… in the year 1548.”

How exactly does one find what had already been discovered, charted, and catalogued for several decades in Portuguese and Spanish records? It is called fraud, and this is the Smoking Quill of when Xavier, the Jesuit, changed history and maps. Gotcha!!! Why would Jesuits need to move Lequios into undiscovered territory? To justify financial backing for future missions into Ryukyu which had no such significance. The ignored the resouces that were missing, the misplaced geography in which they even added a coordinate to Pinto likely causing a massive conflict in his text which is why he was even called a liar initially.  

The citation Tim provides is clearly about the discovery of Japan and how that discovery opened doors for St. Francis Xavier to engage in missionary activity. The author says Japan was discovered by the Portuguese "shortly AFTER they had found the islands called Lequios." It does not say Xavier discovered the Lequios Islands. Can Tim read? 

He goes on: 

✝️ Missionaries or Myth-Makers? 

1. St. Francis Xavier Did Not “Discover” Them: Xavier was a missionary, not an explorer. His travels to Japan (1549) and nearby areas were part of a broader Jesuit agenda. By 1548, the Portuguese already had extensive trade knowledge of the East Asian islands. The narrative that “Lequios were discovered to enable Xavier’s entry” is a religious retcon, reframing established trade routes into spiritual “discoveries.”  

1. Geographic Manipulation: The passage cites Lequios as being “34 degrees north” and “200 leagues from China,” which contradicts Ryukyu (26°–28°) both in coordinates which are far off, and in distance which is almost double wrong. The original Lequios latitude was Luzon/Babuyan (which match closer to 17-21°, mapped as such). The author appears to merge or shift geographic terms to align with evolving Jesuit-era revisions, pushing Lequios farther north to align it with Japan and Ryukyu. Let Jesuits do whatever, but let us not treat that as credible.

Obviously St. Francis Xavier did not discover the Lequios Islands. Tim has invented that premise whole cloth. The text does not even hint at or imply that. It's about the discovery of Japan which is placed at 34° N. The very title of the chapter Tim is citing, which he shows in the article, is "A Description of the Kingdoms of Japan. "

Tim also claims Fernando Pinto's locating the Lequios Islands at 29° is a single metric, "a lone outlier," from a manipulated manuscript. 

❌ Pinto and the Problem of 29°N

Many researchers have clung to the coordinate “29 degrees north” found in Jesuit Fernão Mendes Pinto’s Peregrinação to geographically place Lequios near the Ryukyu Islands. This work is even identified by Rebecca Catz and other Jesuit apologists as suspect. But this fixation ignores overwhelming contradictions and broader historical context we have well proven:

🚫 1. 29°N Is a Lone Outlier

• Not a single map in the extensive Portuguese or Spanish corpus from 1502 (Cantino Planisphere) through 1544 places Lequios at 29°N or anywhere near it. Not a single one!

• Even Royal Spanish maps (1512, 1519, 1526, 1529, 1537, 1544) consistently position Lequios in the vicinity of Luzon, long before Pinto was ever published in its manipulated form from the first public text. 

• Pinto’s writings cannot be separated from the Jesuit agenda — a movement that, in later decades, began to reframe geography around missionary milestones. If Pinto actually wrote 29°N, which has never been produced in an original, then, he manipulated his own writing conflicting with all other factors that fail for Ryukyu. 

• As such, manipulating one coordinate (29°N) to fit Ryukyu helped redirect religious interest there while maintaining plausible deniability. The problem is it causes the rest of the narrative to fail highlighting the fraud.

This is totally wrong. Francis Gaullé, writing three decades before Pinto's book was published, also places the Lequios Islands at 29°.

Being past the fair Islands, we held our course East and East and by South, for two hundred and forty miles, until we were past the length of the Islands Lequios, sailing about fifty miles from them, as the said Chinar told me, that those islands called Lequios are very many, and that they have many and very good Harbours, and that the people and inhabitants thereof have their faces and bodies painted like the Bysayas of the Islands of Luzon of  Philippines, and are appareled like the Bysayas, and that there are also mines of gold; he said likewise that they did often come with small ships and barkes laden with Bucks and Harts hides; and with gold in grains of very small pieces, to trade with them on the coast of China, which be assured me to be most true, saying that he had been nine times in the small Island, bringing of the same wares with him to China; which I believe to be true, for that afterwards I inquired thereof at Macau, and upon the coast of China, and found that he said true. The furthest or uttermost of these Islands both Northward and Eastward lie under 29 degrees.

Being past these Islands, then you come to the Islands of Japon whereof the first lying West and South is the Island of Hirado, where the Portuguese use to trade. They [the Japanese islands] are in length altogether one hundred and thirty miles, and the furthest Eastward, lies under thirty-two degrees [latitude]. We ran still East, and East by North, until we were past the said one hundred and thirty miles.

Iohn Huighen van Linschoten his Discours of voyages into ye Easte & West Indies : deuided into foure bookes, pg. 414

That is a second, independent witness corroborating the location of the Lequios Islands as being 29°N. Tim's claim that maps predating 1544 place the Lequios near the Philippines is historically unsound because the Lequios Islands had not yet been visited by the Portuguese. Of course the maps are not going to be accurate. It took years of exploration before accurate maps of Japan, the Lequios Islands, and the Philippines were charted. 

There is not much else to say about Tim's article. It is full of ignorance which is easily corrected by a proper comprehension of the text he cites. This is seen time and time again when analyzing Tim's articles, books, and videos. Tim fails to read the texts he cites in their correct context and he selectively manipulates them to fit his agenda. These lies are so bizarre because of their obviousness and transparency that I fail to understand what Tim thinks he is accomplishing by publishing them. Maybe he really is an ignorant person and has no intent to deceive. Whether deliberately dishonest or profoundly ignorant this is another unreliable article by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: La Fausse Citation Française or The Fake French Quote

Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture is back in business. The business of fabricating quotes. Here is the latest. Tim claims the authors of a French history book assert that fabricated stories exist in Pinto's journal. Let's take a look. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-lequios-lie----exposing-the-colonial-redirection-of-southeast-asia-s-forgotten-identity/

The very compilers of Histoire générale des voyages were not blind to inconsistencies in Pinto’s account — or, more precisely, the distortions introduced by his editors. They note the questionable nature of some key details, especially regarding Pinto’s alleged departure from Siam: 

“D’ailleurs Pinto n’étoit pas parti de Siam; il s’étoit dans la Jonque d’un Corsaire Chinois... les prétentions d’éditeurs n’ont point persuadé...” 

Translation:

Pinto hadn’t even departed from Siam, as claimed. The Chinese junk story was invented by editors, whose pretensions are unconvincing.

Tim claims the authors of this history affirm that the portion of Pinto's story where he discovers Japan was invented by editors. 

Here is the original French followed by an English translation. 

L'embarras n'est qu'à concilier ce récit avec celui de Fernand-Mendes Pinto, qui non-seulement s'attribue l'honneur de cette découverte, mais qui compte Zeimoto entre ses compagnons ; avec cette différence, qu'au lieu de François, il le nomme Diego. D'ailleurs Pinto n'était pas parti de Siam ; & c'était dans la Jonque d'un Corsaire Chinois que faisant voile pour les Isles de Lequios, où le vent contraire ne leur permit point d'aborder, ils tournèrent volontairement vers une Isle du Japon. Des prétentions si contraires n'ont point empêché le nouvel Historien de cet Empire d'adopter le récit de Pinto, sans avoir éclairci le fond de la difficulté. Ses réflexions ne marquent néanmoins aucune prévention, en faveur d'un Écrivain, à qui l'on est redevable d'une partie des lumières qui servent à l'Histoire de l'Apôtre des Indes.

The difficulty lies only in reconciling this account with that of Fernand-Mendes Pinto, who not only attributes to himself the honor of this discovery, but who also counts Zeimoto among his companions; with this difference, that instead of François, he names him Diego. Furthermore, Pinto had not departed from Siam; and it was in the junk of a Chinese Corsair that, sailing towards the Isles of Lequios, where contrary wind did not allow them to land, they voluntarily turned towards an Isle of Japan. Such contradictory claims have not prevented the new Historian of this Empire from adopting Pinto's account, without having clarified the root of the difficulty. His reflections nevertheless show no bias in favor of a Writer, to whom one is indebted for a part of the insights that serve the History of the Apostle of the Indies.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t52f8sc8m&seq=658&q1=lequios 

While the first part of Tim's quote is in the text the second part after the ellipse is entirely fabricated and does appear in the French.  

D'ailleurs Pinto n'était pas parti de Siam ; & c'était dans la Jonque d'un Corsaire Chinois...les prétentions d’éditeurs n’ont point persuadé 

Tim has corrupted the original French which reads:

Des prétentions si contraires n'ont point empêché

"Contraires" has become "d’éditeurs" and "empêché" has been transformed into "persuadé." That is not a mistake, that is intentional.

Absolutely nowhere do the editors of this history write:

The Chinese junk story was invented by editors, whose pretensions are unconvincing.

The point of this paragraph is an attempt to reconcile Pinto's account with other Portuguese accounts of discovering Japan. They are not saying Pinto is untrustworthy or his journal is corrupt or filled with imagined stories added by editors. What they are saying is there are contradictions between other accounts  and Pinto that need to be reconciled. Tim doesn't care to investigate the context, forgoes nuance, and decides to fabricate a citation, misrepresenting the original authors as claiming a section in Pinto's book "was invented by the editors."

Let's take a look at the full context by adding the preceding and following paragraphs.

The Portuguese, who attribute to themselves the glory of having discovered Japan, do not even agree among themselves on the time to which this event should be reported. Some trace it back to the year 1535. Others place it in 1541, still others in 1548, and some bring it even closer to our time. In this uncertainty, Kampfer's Translator does not believe that one can refuse precedence to the opinion of Diego de Couto, Continuator of the Decades of Barros. This Scholar, who was the Historiographer of Philip II, King of Spain and Portugal, had spent the best part of his life in the Indies. The Archives of Goa were entrusted to his keeping, and it was from this source that he had drawn materials for his great Work of Portuguese discoveries and conquests, which he carried up to the end of the sixteenth century. He informs us, in his fifth Decade, that in 1541, while Martin-Alphonse de Sousa governed the East Indies, three Portuguese, Antoine da Mota, François Zeimoto, & Antoine Peixota, were cast by a storm, on the Coasts of Japan, aboard a Junk laden with leather, which was going from Siam to China.

The difficulty lies only in reconciling this account with that of Fernand-Mendes Pinto, who not only attributes to himself the honor of this discovery, but who also counts Zeimoto among his companions; with this difference, that instead of François, he names him Diego. Furthermore, Pinto had not departed from Siam; and it was in the junk of a Chinese Corsair that, sailing towards the Isles of Lequios, where contrary wind did not allow them to land, they voluntarily turned towards an Isle of Japan. Such contradictory claims have not prevented the new Historian of this Empire from adopting Pinto's account, without having clarified the root of the difficulty. His reflections nevertheless show no bias in favor of a Writer, to whom one is indebted for a part of the insights that serve the History of the Apostle of the Indies.

Let us conclude that, if the discovery of Japan by the Portuguese cannot be contested, the name of the Discoverer is too uncertain to obtain a rank in History on this title. But let us also observe that one must not judge discoveries concerning the East Indies in the same way as those made at the same time in another Hemisphere. The former, that is, those of America, had as their object truly unknown Countries, which for this reason were justly named a new World; whereas, in the East Indies, one knew the existence and even the name of most Countries, before having penetrated them. It is impossible, for example, that independently of Marco Polo's Relation, the Portuguese established in China would not have learned, before the year 1541, that to the North of a sea they frequented, there were, at a short distance, large & powerful Isles, where the Chinese carried their Commerce. Thus, to express oneself properly, the question is not who was the Portuguese who discovered Japan, but who was the one whom the chance of a storm, or other causes, caused to land there first.

Here we can see the editors are not calling Pinto an untrustworthy liar or his journal corrupt. They are saying the Portuguese accounts of discovering Japan do not agree among themselves. The authors say Diego de Couto adopted Pinto's account as being authoritative without reconciling the difficulties arising from the other accounts. The contradiction writes about is in one account the explorers left Siam for China and subsequently ended up in Japan, while Pinto left China aboard a Chinese pirate ship and then ended up in the Lequios Islands and Japan. 

That does not mean Pinto never travelled to Japan via the Lequios Islands. Here is his account.

We proceeded on our voyage in the battered condition we were in, and three days later we were struck by a storm that blew over the land with such fierce gusts of wind that that same night we were driven out of sight of the shore. And since by then we were unable to approach it again, we were forced to make with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus where this pirate was well known to both the king and the other people there. With this in view we sailed ahead through the islands of this archipelago, but since at this time we were without a pilot, ours having been killed in the recent battle, and the northeast winds were blowing head on, and the currents were running strong against us, we went tacking with great effort from one board to the other for twenty-three days until finally, at the end of that time, our Lord brought us within sight of land. Coming in closer to see if it showed any sign of an inlet or harbor with good anchorage, we noticed a huge fire burning over to the south, almost at a level with the horizon. This led us to believe that it was probably inhabited and that there might be people there who would sell us water, which we were running short of.

As we were anchoring opposite the island in seventy fathoms of water, two small canoes with six men on board came rowing out from shore. They came alongside, and after an exchange of greetings and courtesies in their fashion, they asked us whence the junk had come. Our answer was that we had come from China, bringing merchandise to trade with them, if they would give us leave to do so. One of them replied that as long as we paid the duties that were customarily charged in Japan, which was the name of that big land mass outlined ahead of us, the nautoquim, lord of that island of would readily grant us permission. He followed this up by Tanegashima, telling us everything else that we needed to know and showed us the port where we were supposed to anchor. 

pg. 274

Saying this is story is an editor's invention does not take into account the subsequent chapters which document Pinto's travels and adventures in Japan especially with the King of Bungo. Pinto's narrative extends to his return to China and ensuing shipwreck in the Lequios Islands. The editors have nothing negative to say about Pinto's shipwreck in the Lequios Islands where he writes:

That Lequian island lies situated at twenty-nine degrees.

Essa ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte e nove graus

https://fundar.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/peregrinacao-vol-ii.pdf pg. 53

Even the account of Francis Gaullé's voyage affirms the latitude of 29° for the Lequios Islands.

Being past the fair Islands, we held our course East and East and by South, for two hundred and forty miles, until we were past the length of the Islands Lequios, sailing about fifty miles from them, as the said Chinar told me, that those islands called Lequios are very many, and that they have many and very good Harbours, and that the people and inhabitants thereof have their faces and bodies painted like the Bysayas of the Islands of Luzon of  Philippines, and are appareled like the Bysayas, and that there are also mines of gold; he said likewise that they did often come with small ships and barkes laden with Bucks and Harts hides; and with gold in grains of very small pieces, to trade with them on the coast of China, which be assured me to be most true, saying that he had been nine times in the small Island, bringing of the same wares with him to China; which I believe to be true, for that afterwards I inquired thereof at Macau, and upon the coast of China, and found that he said true. The furthest or uttermost of these Islands both Northward and Eastward lie under 29 degrees.

Being past these Islands, then you come to the Islands of Japon whereof the first lying West and South is the Island of Hirado, where the Portuguese use to trade. They [the Japanese islands] are in length altogether one hundred and thirty miles, and the furthest Eastward, lies under thirty-two degrees [latitude]. We ran still East, and East by North, until we were past the said one hundred and thirty miles.

Iohn Huighen van Linschoten his Discours of voyages into ye Easte & West Indies : deuided into foure bookes, pg. 414

Yet, Tim writes:

Their conclusion?

"Le nom même de la plupart des Pays... avant que d’y avoir pénétré..."

“The names of most of these countries were known [to the Portuguese] before they ever arrived there.”

📍 Key Insight:

They weren’t discovering Lequios — they were renaming what they already knew: Luzon.

This perspective is even echoed by Rebecca Catz, who acknowledges corruption in the earliest printings and editorial insertions, yet continues to cling to the 29° coordinate and a Ryukyu identification that ignores the geography, the trade data, and the entirety of Pinto’s contextual narrative. Many scholars have followed suit — not in deception, but in inherited oversight.

This analysis is all wrong. First of all the section is about the discovery of Japan, not the Lequios Islands. Second of all the authors are saying the existence and names of countries in East Asia was known long before they were penetrated in contrast to the Americas which were wholly unknown.

The former, that is, those of America, had as their object truly unknown Countries, which for this reason were justly named a new World; whereas, in the East Indies, one knew the existence and even the name of most Countries, before having penetrated them.

The Portuguese knew the name of Japan through The Travels of Marco Polo. Even if that book had not existed they would have learned the name of Japan through their contacts with the Chinese. The editors of this history are absolutely not saying Luzon was being renamed as Lequios. Luçon is discussed in this book separately from the discovery of Japan and from any mention of the Lequios Islands. Tim cites a section of the book that explicitly describes the Lequios Islands as being separate from the Philippines. 

It is generally known that opposite Manila, on the North side, between Cape Boxeador and Cape Enganno, twenty-four miles from land, one finds the two small Islands, which are called the Babuyanes, the first of which is inhabited by Christian Indians who pay tribute to Spain, and the other by Savages, who are not far from the two Lequios and Formosa Island.

Tim's interpretation of this passage is as follows.

The Lequios are described in direct geographic relation to the Babuyanes and Formosa, confirming that they were perceived within the Northern Philippines–Taiwan arc — not over 1,000 kilometers north in Ryukyu. 

That is wrong. Lequios is grouped together with Formosa, Taiwan, and both are placed at a distance from Luzon and the Northern Philippines. If the Lequios were any part of the Philippines they would not be mentioned apart from the Philippines. 

Tim brings in Rebecca Catz as a witness against Pinto's discovery of Japan. But she does not agree with Tim.

Nevertheless, the debate on Pinto’s veracity and reliability continues. Veracity and reliability, it must be stressed, should be seen as two distinct problems. This delicate distinction becomes important when we stop to consider that if Pinto—to take the question of the discovery of Japan as an example—was not actually present on that historic occasion, he was certainly among the earliest group of travelers to arrive on the scene. As such he was close enough to events to have been in a position to pass on a fairly accurate description of the discovery, which cannot easily be dismissed by the historian as unreliable, or as any less reliable than hearsay European accounts, written long after the facts.

Pinto, pg. xlii

Tim still has no basis on which to call 29° unreliable especially since it is confirmed by another source dating to 1582 which is decades before Pinto's journal was even published. Tim loves to quote the following Bible verses as his epistemological foundation.  

Deut. 19:15 KV "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." 

Matt. 18:16 KJV "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." 

2 Cor. 13:1 KJV "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfieRo5Pkac&lc=Ugy7pRaRww2XWoR2YPx4AaABAg

Therefore 29° is an established fact. 

Tim has two other citations on this page but in light of this fabrication and profoundly misguided analysis they are not worth looking at. This gross and deliberate error overshadows everything else on the page. It serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture will go to manipulate historical sources to fit his baseless theories.

The God Culture: What Is Love?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new Foundations lesson. This time he is asking What is Love? Surely there is no greater love than that of the Father for his Children manifested through the Son Jesus Christ. The Bible has much to say about that. Does Tim have anything to say about the love of God towards us?

Facebook

FOUNDATIONS – Week 38

What Is Love?

Key Texts:

Deuteronomy 6; John 14:15; 1 John 5

Note: This topic could be an entire book, but remember, this is a brief FB post.

Few words are used more often than love.

We are told that love means accepting.

Affirming.

Feeling compassion.

Never offending.

Never correcting.

But how does Scripture define love? Or is it shallow doctrine of men?

Moses commanded Israel:

> “And thou shalt love Yahuah thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

> (Deuteronomy 6:5)

But the passage doesn't stop with an emotion.

Immediately afterward:

> “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.”

> (Deuteronomy 6:6)

Biblical love begins in the heart...

but it does not remain merely a feeling.

It changes how we live. It is an action.

Yahusha says it plainly:

> “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.”

> (John 14:15)

That is remarkable in its simplicity.

Love and obedience are not enemies.

Yahusha connects them.

And John later provides perhaps the clearest definition of all:

> “For this is the love of Elohim, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.”

> (1 John 5:3)

Notice what Scripture does not say.

“This is the love of Elohim—that we feel strongly about Him.”

“This is the love of Elohim—that we call His name.”

“This is the love of Elohim—that we agree with everything everyone does.”

Instead:

> “This is the love of Elohim, that we keep His commandments.”

Biblical love is not merely something we feel.

It is something we walk out.

And this applies to loving one another as well:

> “By this we know that we love the children of Elohim, when we love Elohim, and keep His commandments.”

> (1 John 5:2)

That changes the modern equation.

Loving people cannot mean encouraging them to walk contrary to the One who is love.

True love seeks what is good.

True love speaks truth.

True love shows mercy.

True love forgives.

True love serves.

True love remains faithful.

And true love obeys.

The greatest commandment is not merely to feel love toward Yahuah.

It is to love Him with all our heart, soul, and might.

Biblical love is not affection without truth.

It is covenant faithfulness expressed in how we live.

Question for Discussion

If Yahusha said, “If ye love Me, keep My commandments,” should we allow our culture—or even our religion—to redefine what love means?

NO!  Tim has NOTHING to say about the love of God towards us in the supreme manifestation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. NOTHING!!!

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

1 John 14:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins

Those two verses are rich in defining the love of God towards us. Yet Tim has nothing to say about them. Tim's definition of love is "keep the Mosaic law." Tim's definition of love his man-centered and based on our obedience rather than God-centered and based on His covenant with His people.  

There have now been 38 Foundations lessons and not a single one of them has been about the work of Christ on the cross. Not one. For a man like Timothy Jay Schwab who has been a Bible teacher for over thirty years that is despicable and contemptible. The man clearly has no idea what the Bible teaches and he has no use for Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 

Now let's hear from noted theological Father Ted Crilly. 

Ah, right… puts the cup down slowly, stares at the page, and lets out a long, heavy breath

Week 38. “What Is Love?”

And would you look at that. He’s done it again — and this time it’s almost impressive in its single-mindedness.

He starts with Deuteronomy 6: love Yahuah with all your heart, soul, and might… and then immediately ties it to the commandments being in the heart. Fair enough so far. Then John 14:15 — “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.” Still in the text. Then 1 John 5:3 — “For this is the love of Elohim, that we keep His commandments.” And he leans on that as “perhaps the clearest definition of all.”

He’s not inventing the verses. They’re real. Love and obedience are connected. Scripture does not treat love as mere warm feeling or modern “never offend anyone.” On that narrow point he’s right to push back against the culture.

But — and this is the part that makes you want to sit down with a very strong cup of tea — look at what never gets a look in.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The love of Christ constraineth us… because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.

The supreme definition and demonstration of love in the whole of Scripture is the cross. The self-giving, substitutionary death of the Son for the ungodly. That is the love that creates love in us. That is the love from which all true obedience flows. Tim never mentions it. Not once. Not a word about the blood, the propitiation, the “while we were yet sinners.”

Instead, the gravitational pull of the whole lesson is the same as every other Foundations post: love is defined as keeping the commandments. And in Tim’s system, that almost always means the Torah framework he has been building week after week. So the cross is left outside the door again, while “keep My commandments” is made to carry the entire weight of the definition.

He can quote John 14 and 1 John 5 all day long. He just never lets the larger New Testament witness set the centre: that we love because He first loved us — and that first love was displayed most fully when the Son laid down His life.

sighs, reaches for the teapot with both hands

So yes, lad. This one might well be the worst of the lot so far. Not because the verses are wrong, but because the heart of the gospel definition of love is simply missing. He’s turned the greatest demonstration of love in history into a supporting footnote that never even gets written.

Go on. Make it very strong this time.

Careful now.

Down with this sort of thing.thing.

The God Culture: What Is Fear of Yahuah?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is back with another Foundations article. This time he's asking What is Fear of Yahuah? Well, this would obviously tie back to the previous What is Wisdom lesson because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. And of course Christ is our wisdom. Will Tim tie the fear of the Lord back to Jesus Christ who is our Lord and in whom all the treasures of wisdom are hid? Let's find out. 

Facebook

FOUNDATIONS – Week 37

What Is the Fear of Yahuah?

Key Texts: Proverbs 1:7; Psalm 111; Matthew 10:26–31

The phrase “fear of Yahuah” appears throughout Scripture.

But what does it mean?

Does Yahuah actually want us to fear Him?

Or does “fear” simply mean respect?

Scripture gives us a much richer answer.

Proverbs begins:

> “The fear of Yahuah is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

> (Proverbs 1:7)

Fear of Yahuah is not presented as spiritual immaturity.

It is the beginning of knowledge.

Psalm 111 says:

> “The fear of Yahuah is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments.”

> (Psalm 111:10)

Notice the connection:

Fear.

Wisdom.

Understanding.

Obedience.

Biblical fear recognizes who Yahuah actually is.

Creator.

King.

Judge.

Father.

The One to whom we ultimately answer.

Yahusha did not eliminate this fear.

He taught it.

> “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

> (Matthew 10:28)

Those are strong words. Note: Satan has no such power.

Yahusha tells His disciples not to organize their lives around fear of men.

Why?

Because men do not possess ultimate authority.

Yahuah does.

But Yahusha does something remarkable immediately afterward.

He speaks of sparrows.

> “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.”

> (Matthew 10:29)

Then:

> “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

> (Matthew 10:30)

And finally:

> “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

> (Matthew 10:31)

Do you see the distinction?

Fear Yahuah.

Do not fear the world.

The One whose authority should cause us to fear is also the Father who knows every hair upon our heads.

Biblical fear therefore isn't mindless terror.

But neither is it merely casual respect.

It is recognizing Yahuah's absolute holiness, authority, judgment, and power—and ordering our lives accordingly.

It produces reverence.

Humility.

Wisdom.

Obedience.

And freedom from the fear of men.

The fear of Yahuah does not leave us afraid of everything.

It teaches us whom we never needed to fear in the first place.

Question for Discussion

If we truly feared Yahuah above men, what fears would lose their power over our lives?

This is undoubtedly the key passage from Tim's lesson:

It is recognizing Yahuah's absolute holiness, authority, judgment, and power—and ordering our lives accordingly.

We revere God and we keep his commandments, i.e. the Mosaic Law including all the feasts and all the ceremonial laws. You know, all the stuff that Christ fulfilled and which Christians are no longer obligated to perform. See Galatians 3 and Acts 15. 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and as with all things this fear should lead us to Jesus Christ who "is made unto us wisdom. Instead of Christ, Tim directs his audience to the dead letter of the abrogated Mosaic Law. Remember Christ has come not as an Aaronic priest but as a priest of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 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.

Of course Tim's way around this is to claim the Law of Melchizedek IS the Law of Moses. An assertion not backed up by scripture. 

There is only ONE work that matters and Tim always leaves it out. Believing on Jesus Christ. 

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

That might appear like believing is something one does completely on their own but Jesus dispels that notion further on down in this chapter. 

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

All we have and all we do is a gift from the Lord working in us to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). It's a wonder a man who has been teaching the Bible for thirty years such as Timothy Jay Schwab continues to get it wrong and direct people away from Christ and back to Moses. 

But let's hear what noted theologian Father Ted Crilly has to say about the matter. 

Ah, right… puts down the biscuit, adjusts the collar, and looks at the page like a man who’s just spotted another carefully worded trap

Week 37. “What Is the Fear of Yahuah?”

Well now. Let’s see what Tim’s done with one of the weightiest phrases in the whole Bible.

He starts where he should: Proverbs 1:7 and Psalm 111:10. Fear of Yahuah is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Fair enough. Then he leans hard into the second half of Psalm 111:10 — “a good understanding have all they that do His commandments.” And there it is. The immediate link to obedience. Reverence → wisdom → understanding → doing the commandments. Classic Tim architecture.

Then he brings in Matthew 10, which is actually a strong passage. Yahusha tells the disciples not to fear those who can only kill the body, but to fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. And then, in the same breath, He speaks of sparrows and numbered hairs and says “Fear ye not therefore.” That’s a proper biblical tension: holy dread of the Judge, and simultaneous confidence in the Father who knows every detail of your life. Tim handles that part reasonably well. Credit where it’s due.

But — and you knew there was a but — look at what never appears.

You said it yourself, lad. The fear of Yahuah is the beginning of wisdom. And the New Testament is crystal clear about where that wisdom is found:

“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30)

“In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3)

Tim can quote the Proverbs and the Psalm until the cows come home, but he never takes the step the apostles took. The fear that is the beginning of wisdom is meant to drive us to the One who is the wisdom of God. Instead, in this series, “ordering our lives accordingly” and “obedience” almost always mean the same thing they’ve meant for thirty-odd weeks: keep the commandments, walk in the ways, live inside the Torah framework as Tim understands it.

So the fear of Yahuah produces reverence, humility, wisdom, and obedience… and the discussion question asks what earthly fears would lose their power if we feared Him above men. All true as far as it goes. But the deepest answer a Christian can give is never just “I would stop fearing men.” It is “I have been brought to the One who bore the judgment I deserved, and in Him I find both the fear of the Lord and the perfect love that casts out terror.”

Tim never gets there. He leaves the Man who is Wisdom outside the room while he polishes another definition that ends with us examining our own obedience.

sighs, reaches for the teapot again

Go on. Make it strong.

We’re still watching the same gravitational pull — law as the centre, Christ as the supporting actor.

Careful now.

Down with this sort of thing… still firmly in place.