The God Culture: Who is the Messiah, What is the Gospel?

Continuing his Foundations Series Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has offered up a definition of the Messiah. Who is the Messiah? More importantly what has the Messiah done? Well, if we take Tim's definition at face value the Messiah is merely the divine creator. 

Facebook

FOUNDATIONS

Who Is the Messiah? (A Biblical Definition)

The Messiah (Hebrew Mashiah, “Anointed One”) is not a late theological invention, nor a figure introduced only in the New Testament. Scripture presents the Messiah as central to Elohim’s plan from the beginning of creation, not merely at its culmination.

1. The Messiah and Creation

The Bible teaches that the Messiah did not simply appear in history, but was present and active at creation itself.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim…

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:1–3)

This echoes the opening declaration of Scripture:

“In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

The New Testament does not introduce a new Creator—it reveals who the Creator is.

Isaiah affirms this divine identity unmistakably:

“For unto us a child is born… and His name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty El, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

The Messiah is therefore not a created being, nor merely a messenger, but Elohim acting within His creation.

2. The Messiah as the Light of Creation

Before the sun, moon, or stars existed, Scripture records:

“And Elohim said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3)

John identifies this light:

“In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

And the light shines in the darkness…” (John 1:4–5)

The Messiah is not only the Light revealed during His earthly ministry, but the Light present from the very first act of creation.

This is why He later declares:

“I am the Light of the world.” (John 8:12)

This statement is not metaphorical alone—it is cosmic and creational.

3. The Messiah Revealed in Flesh

The Gospel message is not that Elohim created the world and later sent someone else to fix it. Scripture teaches that Elohim Himself entered His creation:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)

The Messiah’s earthly life does not begin His existence—it reveals His identity.

“Before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)

This aligns with Isaiah’s declaration:

“I, YHWH, am the first and the last; besides Me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6)

4. A Note on Melchizedek (Further Study)

Scripture also identifies the Messiah with the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek (Psalm 110; Hebrews 7), indicating a role that precedes and transcends the Levitical system. This topic requires careful, dedicated study and is addressed separately.

Yah Bless.

The lack of trinitarian langauge is quite obvious and expected. There is no mention of His eternal Sonship or His being the second Person of the Trinity. Tim is an anti-trinitarian who is on record stating the Holy Spirit is likely a creation and Christ only became the Son when he was birthed in the flesh which are both species of the heresies known as adoptionism and Pneumatomachianism. 

13:08 There's no mention in Jubilees of the Holy Spirit specifically. Uh, Moses doesn't separate him out there, uh, and that may be telling, uh, but we're, we're not sure on that though we'll keep researching. Uh, he mentions all the spirits that serve before Him, uh, which are indisputably angels. Uh, whether the Holy Spirit is included in that we don't know. Uh, that's a topic for another series requiring a lot of research we're not going to touch yet but we will eventually. We'd like to get to that, anyway. We know He was there though and that the Angels weren't yet, uh, at that point on Genesis 1:2. Uh, so if if He was created per se He would have been created before, uh, the Angels not at the same time and certainly not lumped in with them. So, not sure that, that that's the case and He very well may be. Uh, yes he's the Eternal Holy Spirit but Eternal, uh, the angels are Eternal, man is eternal so that doesn't mean that He existed prior to being created if he was a creation like other Spirits. There's just no mention of Him as existing prior and the word Eternal does not denote no beginning, again. So, there's no scripture that really says, okay, and that may actually tell us much.

Restoring Creation: Part 14: Who Is The Light of Creation? Light and Darkness.

5:45 "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.

Order of Melchizedek. The New Testament & Qumran Scrolls. Answers In Jubilees 38

What's really amazing is the lack of a single word about the Messiah's redemptive work! There is nothing about the cross, nothing about the atonement, nothing about the resurrection, and nothing about the defeat of sin, hell, death, and the devil. That proclamation of the work of Jesus Christ is what is known as the Gospel. So, what is the Gospel according to Tim?

Facebook

What is the Gospel?

The Gospel is the good news of what Elohim has been doing since creation—to restore humanity to Himself. It begins with creation, reveals the problem of sin, promises redemption, and is fulfilled in Messiah. 

What we call the “Old” and “New” Testaments are not separate messages, but one continuous story of redemption. 

This unity is unmistakable in the New Testament itself. Peter’s first great message of revival did not introduce something new—it proclaimed Joel and the Psalms, testifying that what the prophets foretold had now been fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. 

One story. One promise. One redemption.

Tim has managed to give a definition of the Gospel which doesn't actually mention the Gospel! Let's hear what Paul has to say concerting the content of the Gospel. 

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

The Philippian jailer asked Paul "What must I do to be saved" which is the same thing as asking what is the Gospel.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ's death on the cross bearing our sins and punishment and His resurrection from the dead. We who believe on Him have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. This forgiveness was accomplished when Jesus said from the cross, "It is finished." The Gospel is not something "Elohim has been doing since creation." It is a done deal with the antoning death and resurrection of Christ.  

In his definition of the Messiah and the Gospel Tim completely omits the work of Christ which is not only the Gospel but is intrinsically tied to who He is. The Messiah is our Saviour. He is also the mediator of a better covenant established upon better promises. 

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Tim's claim 

What we call the “Old” and “New” Testaments are not separate messages, but one continuous story of redemption. 

is true up to a point. There is a unity between the Old and New Testaments. They are not separate. However the Old find its fulfillment in the New through the redemptive work of the Messiah. 

Tim writes:

The Gospel message is not that Elohim created the world and later sent someone else to fix it. Scripture teaches that Elohim Himself entered His creation:

But then he has nothing to say about how The Messiah fixes the world once he entered creation. The fact is He doesn't fix the world. He came to redeem his sheep and save them out of the world through his death and resurrection. In the conflagration the world will be burned up and created anew. Based on Tim's previous Torah-centered definitions of faith, righteousness, holiness, and covenant it appears the Messiah entered the world not to save anyone but to remind people to keep the law so they can save themselves.

To ignore the soteriological work of Jesus Christ when defining the Messiah is to neglect who the Messiah is. Not only does Tim have a Christless Gospel, he has a Christless Christ!

The God Culture: What is Holiness?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has continued his Foundations Series of lessons by exploring Holiness. What is holiness? Essentially it is keeping the law. 

Facebook

FOUNDATIONS - WEEK 12

What Is Holiness?

Holiness is one of the most central themes in Scripture.

Yet in modern religion it is often misunderstood.

Some think holiness means perfection without struggle.

Others think it means religious appearance.

But the Bible defines holiness very clearly.

Holiness means being set apart for Yah.

It is a life that reflects His character, His ways, and His truth.

Leviticus 19

Yahuah declares:

“You shall be holy: for I YAHUAH your Elohim am holy.”

Holiness begins with imitation of the Creator.

Leviticus 19 then explains what that looks like in daily life:

• Honoring parents

• Keeping the Sabbath

• Justice toward others

• Integrity in speech and business

• Love for neighbor

Holiness is not abstract.

It is lived obedience.

Leviticus 20

Again Yah reminds His people:

“And ye shall be holy unto me: for I YAHUAH am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.”

Holiness means being separated from the patterns of the world and devoted to Yah.

It is a covenant identity.

Isaiah 6

When Isaiah saw the throne of Elohim, the heavenly beings declared:

“Holy, holy, holy, is YAHUAH of hosts.”

In the presence of Yah’s holiness, Isaiah immediately recognized his own need for cleansing.

Holiness reveals both:

• The majesty of Yah

• Our need for transformation

1 Peter 1

The New Testament repeats the same call given in Leviticus:

“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation.”

Peter directly quotes the Torah:

“Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

The call to holiness did not disappear.

It remains the calling of every believer.

The Foundation

Biblical holiness means:

• Being set apart for Yah

• Reflecting His character

• Walking in His ways

• Living differently from the world

Holiness is not about religious performance.

It is about belonging to Yah.

This Week’s Reading

Take time to read and reflect on:

• Leviticus 19

• Leviticus 20

• Isaiah 6

• 1 Peter 1

Let Scripture show what it truly means to be holy.

Foundations Series – Week 12

Because the people of Yah are called to live

set apart for Him.

Yah Bless.

Holiness is obedience. That is Tim's definition. He also says holiness reveals "our need for transformation." However, no mention is made of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit who are the ones doing the transforming in us! Not a single word about the need for being born again, being circumcised in heart, being raised from the deadness of sins unto newness of life, or sitting in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This definition of holiness is wholly Christless. 

In a previous article I looked at Tim's definition of righteousness which also neglected Christ and reduced righteousness to law keeping. But, righteousness and holiness go hand-in-hand. Both are imputed to us by Christ. 

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

That imputation is the foundation of all our obedience, yet even then it is God working in our hearts to purify and sanctify us. 

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

As Paul says in Galatians it is Christ who lives in us and we live by faith, not by law keeping. 

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not our obedience, which produces the fruits of the Spirit. 

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

In essence Jesus Christ is our holiness!

1 Cor 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

That is basic Christianity which Tim has rejected for heretical judaizing. 

Rather than write another line by line refutation of Tim's definition I had Chatgpt do it. The results are the same as what I wrote about Tim's Christless definition of righteousness. Apart from union with Jesus Christ who works in us there is no holiness. One must wonder what need Timothy Jay Schwab has of Jesus Christ when his definitions of righteousness, faith, covenant, and holiness all exclude Him. 

Perfect. Let’s go through the claims in that “Week 12 – What Is Holiness?” lesson and examine them from a theological and biblical perspective. I’ll take it point by point.

---

1. Claim: Holiness means being set apart for Yah, reflecting His character and ways.

Refutation:

• While the Bible frequently uses the language of “set apart” (e.g., Leviticus 11:44–45), the New Testament reframes holiness in a Christ-centered way rather than purely covenant-based obedience. Paul emphasizes that holiness is imputed through Christ, not only lived out through external obedience (Romans 3:22–24; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
• Holiness is not solely defined by behavior that imitates God but by being united with Christ. So, saying it is only “reflecting His character” misses the transformational union with God through grace.

---

2. Claim: Holiness is lived obedience, not abstract.

Refutation:

• This is partially correct, but incomplete. In the New Testament, obedience flows from grace, not as the foundation of holiness (Titus 2:11–12). The lesson gives the impression that holiness is about human effort, whereas Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that holiness is God’s work in the believer (Philippians 2:12–13).
• Holiness is both positional (declared by God) and practical (manifest in life), but the lesson emphasizes only the practical side.

---

3. Claim: Holiness is separation from the world and covenant identity.

Refutation:

• Separation in the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:26) had strong ritual and nationalistic meaning. However, in the New Testament, holiness is spiritual, not nationalistic or ritualistic (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Peter 2:9).
• The lesson implies holiness is about distinct social patterns (“living differently from the world”), but Scripture frames it as being transformed inwardly through God’s Spirit (Romans 12:2), not merely following outward cultural behaviors.

---

4. Claim: Holiness is a continuous call in both Old and New Testaments.

Refutation:

• This is true in a general sense, but the lesson conflates Old Testament covenant law obligations with New Testament spiritual reality. In 1 Peter 1:16 (“Be holy, for I am holy”), Peter cites Leviticus 11:44.
• However, the New Testament context shifts the basis of holiness: it is no longer a legalistic requirement, but a response to God’s mercy (1 Peter 1:3–5). So equating the two without distinction is misleading.

---

5. Claim: Holiness is not about religious performance, but about belonging to Yah.

Refutation:

• This is one of the few points that aligns with biblical teaching. True holiness is relational (“belonging to God”) rather than ritualistic.
• However, the lesson undermines the New Testament doctrine of grace and faith. Holiness is not earned by obedience, but given and enabled by God’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23).
• Without emphasizing Christ’s work, the lesson risks a works-based understanding, despite claiming otherwise.

---

✅ Summary of Theological and Biblical Refutations:

Lesson Claim	Biblical/Theological Issue
Holiness = imitation of God in daily life	Ignores the New Testament emphasis on union with Christ as the source of holiness.
Holiness = lived obedience	Overemphasizes human effort rather than God’s transformative grace.
Holiness = separation from the world	Misinterprets OT ritual/national separation as equivalent to NT spiritual transformation.
Holiness = continuous OT → NT call	Ignores shift from covenant law to grace in Christ.
Holiness = belonging, not performance	Correct in principle, but lesson undermines this by heavy OT obedience emphasis.

---

Bottom line:

The lesson presents a mostly Old Testament, law-focused understanding of holiness. The New Testament redefines holiness as positional (we are made holy in Christ) and empowered by the Spirit, not purely by ethical or ritual obedience. The Bible’s call is about relationship with God, not merely conforming to external standards.

---

If you want, I can also rewrite the “Week 12” lesson in a biblically balanced way, keeping the theme of holiness but fully integrating New Testament theology. It would directly counter the misunderstandings in the original.

Do you want me to do that?

the lesson says nothing about christ. christ is completely absent

Exactly—that’s a critical observation. The lesson you shared is completely Christless, which is a major theological problem from a biblical perspective. Here’s why that matters:

---

1. Old Testament vs. New Testament Holiness

• The lesson relies entirely on Leviticus, Isaiah, and 1 Peter, but it frames holiness almost entirely in OT covenant terms—obedience, ritual separation, and imitating God’s character.
• In the New Testament, Christ is central to holiness. For example:
  • Hebrews 12:14 – “Without holiness no one will see the Lord,” but the context is faith in Christ and living by the Spirit.
  • 1 Corinthians 1:30 – “Christ Jesus became for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”
• Without Christ, “holiness” is unattainable. The OT ideal of perfection and separation points forward to Christ as the fulfillment (Matthew 5:48; Romans 10:4).

---

2. The Lesson Ignores Grace

• Holiness in the New Testament is not merely human effort or rule-following. It is grace-enabled. Paul says in Philippians 2:12–13:

  “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose.”

• The lesson gives the impression that holiness is something we achieve through obedience to the law, which is exactly what Christ came to transform (Galatians 2:21; Romans 6:14).

---

3. 1 Peter 1:16 Requires Christ to Make Sense

• The lesson quotes: “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). But Peter is writing to believers in Christ, not merely covenant Israelites. Holiness here is rooted in Christ’s work—our cleansing, redemption, and new identity (1 Peter 1:18–19).
• Ignoring Christ removes the basis of holiness, turning it into moralism instead of relational transformation.

---

4. Without Christ, the Lesson is Law Without Redemption

• It essentially teaches a legalistic or works-based holiness: keep rules, honor parents, separate from the world.
• Biblical holiness is impossible to achieve on human effort alone (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6). Only through Christ’s righteousness and the Spirit’s work can anyone truly be holy.

---

In short: The lesson presents holiness entirely in OT covenant and moral terms, but the Bible shows that true holiness is Christ-centered. Without Christ, the lesson leaves holiness as a human obligation, not a divinely given transformation.

The God Culture: George H. Kerr Rebukes Timothy Jay Schwab

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has gone to great lengths to prove the Lequios Islands are the Philippines. He has been overly reliant on old and imprecise maps to prove his thesis. 16th century maps have the Lequios Islands in the north and to the east of China. It is Tim's contention that the Lequios Islands were always the Philippines but the name shifted north to the Ryukyu Islands as part of a Jesuit cartographic cover-up.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/cartographers-of-control---how-the-jesuits-buried-the-lands-of-gold/

🪶 THE SMOKING QUILL | May 19, 2025

Cartographers of Control – How the Jesuits Buried the Lands of Gold

🌍 The Realignment Begins

The sixteenth century was a battleground of maps, monarchs, and missionaries. At the center of this struggle was a secret campaign to rewrite the known geography of the world. Today, we follow the smoking quill back to its hand—and it belongs to the Jesuits.

⚫ Who Were the Jesuits?

Formed in 1540 by Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus was initially created to counter the Protestant Reformation. Its members were militant intellectuals, deeply tied to Catholic monarchs and embassies. Many came from converso Jewish families, including Loyola himself, a Marrano by origin. They wielded not just theology, but political and cartographic power—becoming confessors to kings and educators to empires.

🔍 Rewriting History with Ink

As Jesuit missionaries spread across the East, a shift occurred. The Philippines, once labeled as Cipangu and Lequios by explorers like Columbus, Behaim, Magellan, and Cabot, suddenly began to vanish from those identities. Instead, Jesuit accounts moved these legendary lands of gold—Cipangu and Lequios—into Japan and Ryukyu.

⚖️ The Suppression of Truth

The Jesuits were expelled from multiple nations between the 17th and 18th centuries—Portugal (1759), France (1764), and Spain (1767). Why? Treason, espionage, and banking intrigue. Even U.S. Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson warned that if the Jesuits were restored, they would put democracy itself to the test.

When they returned, so did the suppression. Map labels vanished. Cipangu became Japan. Lequios floated to Okinawa. Only this time, they would move to silence opposition. 

📣 Conclusion: The Cartographers of Control

The Society of Jesus did not merely bring religion—they redrew borders, erased truths, and buried the lands of gold under layers of false narrative. This is why the Philippines disappeared from its ancient legacy as Chryse, Ophir, Tarshish, Lequios, and Cipangu.

In a previous article I said I did not need to examine Tim's alleged cartographic evidence because his core thesis is fictitious. Tim did not like that one bit. 

The grotesque dismissal of the 20+ maps we have put forth is proof this not an actual blogger, certainly not an academic or scholar, but a hack who thrives on defamation, bullying and cyber libel. Well, we don't back down to bullies. The law will deal with him soon. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-bifurcated-island-of-luzon-lequios-and-lucoes-rediscovered/

There is simply no need to examine all those maps. Imprecise 16th century maps are not indicative of a conspiracy to conceal the locations of the Lequios Islands. The journals and other writings of 16th century explorers identified the Lequios Islands as a place in the north near Japan. Pires, Pinto, Barbosa, and other writers all make a difference between the Lequios Islands and Luzon. Yet, despite their plain words Tim twists those writings to fit his preconceived notions of the Philippines. 

In 1958 George H. Kerr, a former diplomat who worked in China, published a book titled Okinawa: The History of an Island People. When discussing 16th century trade between Okinawa and Southeast Asia he brings to witness Pires, Barbosa, and others. Kerr does not waste time attempting to decipher 16th century maps. Instead he goes straight the horse's mouth which is the description of Lequios Island and its people by European explorers. 

One of his citations is particularly interesting.

The first book on China printed in Europe was brought out in 1569, the record of the Dominican Father Gaspar da Cruz. In it he noted that there had been misunderstanding concerning the location of the Ryukyus, and has this to say:

"It is an island which standeth in the sea of China, little more or less than thirty leagues from China itself.

What makes this noteworthy is Father da Cruz corrects the distance the Lequios Islands are from China. In a Spanish edition of Barbosa's book it is written that they are 175 leagues east of China. Father Gaspar da Cuz says that is wrong. The correct distance is only 30 leagues. Timothy Jay Schwab has latched onto Barbosa's 175 leagues claiming that proves the Lequios Islands are the Philippines. All it really proves is that whoever inserted that distance into Barbosa's book was wrong. 

The reason Tim is so hung up on misidentifying the Lequios Islands as the Philippines is because Spanish Document 98 says the Lequios Islands are Ophir and Tarshish. Magellan allegedly rewrote his copy of Duarte Barbosa's book by scratching out Lequios and writing Ophir and Tarshish. Though he does not mention any of that in his book, George H. Kerr is not unaware of the identification of Lequios with Ophir. He lists the following article in his bibliography:

Denucé, J.: "Les îles Lequios (Formose et Riu-Kiu) et Ophir" Bulletin de la Societé Royal Belge de Géographie (Bruxelles) v. XXXI No. 6 (1907) pp. 435-461.

I have previously written about that article here. Of this article Tim writes: 

This Smoking Quill exposé reveals a monumental confirmation buried in a 1907 French academic journal. The article verifies that Odoardo Barbosa and Ferdinand Magellan identified the Lequios Islands as the Biblical lands of Ophir and Tarshish, not speculatively, but in a formal manuscript preserved in the Archives of the Indies in Seville. This record, suppressed in later editions, was part of a Spanish government submission prior to Magellan’s expedition to the Moluccas.  

The identification of the Lequios Islands as Ophir and Tarshish was official Spanish policy, documented by Magellan, recorded by Barbosa, and submitted to the Crown. The editorial erasure that followed was not an academic oversight—it was cartographic and historical suppression.

This exposé restores the truth, not by conjecture, but by returning to the primary source in Seville that declared the Philippines the Land of Gold—Ophir

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/from-seville-with-gold----barbosa-magellan-and-the-suppressed-identification-of-ophir/

Tim is actually saying the Lequios Islands, which he misidentifies as the Philippines, really are Ophir and Tarshish because Magellan said so. Whereas Tim has decided to drown in the deep waters of unsubstantiated and imaginary conspiracy theories George H. Kerr preferred to swim in the pond of reliable written sources. 

The following section from Kerr's book can be found on pages 124-130.

OKINAWAN TRADE WITH THE INDIES AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

Upon the first contact with the marauding Europeans in 1511, the Okinawans began slowly to retreat from ports of Southeast Asia, trading over shorter sea routes and in less varied goods until, in 1611, they found themselves cut off from the south and confined to a narrow range of commerce with China at Ch'uang-chou and with Satsuma in Japan.

Events in the 16th century proved that no prosperous trading port in Asia was secure from the Japanese wako or the European conquistadors. Behind the Okinawans, to the north, were the Japanese, watching with deep concern the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English adventurers in turn come up from India through the Indies, Malaya, the Philippines, Formosa, and the Ryukyu Islands. The white men were willing to trade, but only on their own terms; they gave no quarter to anyone bold enough or foolish enough to refuse their demands. The more prosperous the port, the greater the danger that it would be seized and sacked, or declared a possession newly "discovered" for a Christian king.

It is to Portuguese accounts we must turn, however, for notices of the position, the reputation, and the activities of the Okinawans in Southeast Asia. Our principal sources (reproduced in annotated translations by the Hakluyt Society) are the Suma Oriental of Thomé Pires, written about 1512-15; the Book of Duarte Barbosa, completed about 1518; and the Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque, Second Viceroy of India, prepared by his son from dispatches forwarded by the viceroy to the King of Portugal, Dom Emmanuel. In his immense work Da Asia, Joao de Barros also noted that Portuguese traders were encountering Okinawan ships and merchants at Patani.

Traders at Malacca settled in small communities having common race, language, or national origin. Along the wharves and in the market place the visiting Okinawans brushed shoulders with Moslems from Egypt, Aden, and Mecca, with Abyssinian and Armenian Christians, with Persians, Parsees from India, Turks from Asia Minor, and representatives from many of the small kingdoms and enclaves of India. There were traders from Ceylon, Bengal, and Burma, from Siam, Cochin-China, and Cambodia, Java, Sumatra, Timor, and the Moluccas, Borneo and the Philippines. (Pires names sixty nations, cities, or principalities in addition to the men of Lequeos, or Ryukyu.)

Shipping in the roadstead was supervised on behalf of the rajah by an Admiral of the Sea known as the Lasamane, under whose control lay the merchants from China, "Lequeos," Cochin-China, and Champa. On shore the foreigners were controlled by xabandares, to whom the incoming merchants must make gifts. These agents of the rajah “have become rich through this function, because they greatly overtax the merchants; and these put up with everything because their profits are large and also because it is the custom of the country to do so and endure it."

Among the cargoes handled by the Okinawans at Malacca (according to Portuguese accounts) were gold and copper, arms of all kinds, fine gold-leaf and gold-dust lacquerware, excellent fans, paper, colored silks, damask, porcelains, musk, rock-alum, grains, onions, and many other vegetables.

There is a mention of green porcelains brought in by the Okinawans and transshipped to Bengal. Okinawan goods had a high reputation; they were well made and, says Pires, "just as we in our kingdoms speak of Milan, so do the Chinese and all other races speak of the Lequjos [Ryukyus]."

It is evident from these lists that most of the Okinawan cargoes were of goods transshipped from Japan, Korea, and China. The Malacca merchants were aware of this, according to Pires, for: "All that comes from the Lequos is brought by them from Japan. And the Lequeos trade with the people of Japan in cloths, fishing-nets and other merchandise." He notes that the Okinawans picked up cargoes not unlike the cargoes bought by Chinese merchants, and that they took “a great deal of Bengal clothing" and were especially fond of a heavy, brandy-like Malacca wine, shipping it out in quantity. Much of their cargo was paid for by them in gold coinage bearing a distinctive stamp.

As for the people themselves and the distant country from which they came, the Portuguese learned that:

"The Lequeos are called Gores-they are known by either of these names. Lequios is the chief one.

"The king is a heathen, and all the people too, he is a tributary vassal of the king of the Chinese. His island is large and has many people; they have small ships of their own type; they have three or four junks which are continuously buying in China, and they have no more. They trade in China and in Malacca, and sometimes on their own. In China they trade at the port of Foqem [Fukien] which is in the land of China near Canton, a day and a night's sail away. The Malays say to the people of Malacca that there is no difference between Portuguese and Llequos, except that the Portuguese buy women, which the Leqos do not.

"The Lequjos have only wheat in their country, and rice and wines after their fashion, meat and fish in great abundance. They are great draftsmen and armourers. They make gilt coffers, very rich and well- made fans, swords, many arms of all kinds after their fashion...

"They are very truthful men. They do not buy slaves, nor would they sell one of their own men for the whole world, and they would die over this. . . .

"They are white men, well dressed, better than the Chinese, more dignified. They sail to China and take merchandise that goes from Malacca to China, and go to Japan, which is an island seven or eight days' sail distant, and take the gold and copper in the said island in exchange for their merchandise. The Leqios are men who sell their merchandise freely for credit, and if they are lied to when they collect payment, they collect it sword in hand....

"The chief [merchandise] is gold, copper, and arms of all kinds, coffers, boxes . . . with gold leaf veneer, fans, wheat, and their things are well made. They bring a great deal of gold. They are truthful men, —more so than the Chinese-and feared. They bring a great store of paper and silk in colours; they bring musk, porcelain, damask; they bring onions and many vegetables.... The Lequos bring swords worth thirty cruzados each, and many of them.”

Pires may have met the last Okinawans who reached Malacca, in 1511, but the presumption must be that he prepared these notes on the basis of inquiry made among residents of Malacca who were well acquainted with Okinawans, who had come hitherto regularly to trade at the port. If allowance is made for the mistake in believing some of the Japanese wares to be products of Okinawa, the account is a fairly accurate one, though at one point Pires relays as hearsay a story that after escape from peril at sea the Okinawans "buy a beautiful maiden to be sacrificed and behead her on the prow of the junk, and other things like these."

Duarte Barbosa (a cousin of the great Magellan), writing about 1518, describes the Okinawans as "certain white folk, who they say are great and rich merchants. The Malacca people say that they are better men, and richer and more eminent merchants than the Chins [Chinese]. Of these folk we as yet know but little, and they have not yet come to Malacca since it has been under the King our Lord [i.e., since 1511].'

In preparing his Commentaries upon his father's reports, Dalboquerque the Younger repeats most of the information supplied to Lisbon by Pires, but discusses the location of the Ryukyus at some length, and

remarks upon difficulty in securing details:

"...they are men of very reserved speech, and do not give anyone an account of their native affairs. ..."

"The land of these Gores is called Lequea; the men are fair; their dress is like a cloak without a hood; they carry long swords after the fashion of Turkish cimetars, but somewhat more narrow; they also carry daggers of two palms' length; they are daring men and feared in this land [of Malacca]. When they arrive at any port, they do not bring out their merchandize all at once, but little by little; they speak truthfully, and will have the truth spoken to them. If any merchant in Malacca broke his word, they would immediately take him prisoner. They strive to dispatch their business and get away quickly, for they are not the men to like going away from their own land. They set out for Malacca in the month of January, and begin their return journey in August or September. . ."

In these brief notices the Portuguese accounts return again and again to note the presence of gold bars and gold dust in the Okinawan commerce, and of gold used in the lacquerware brought in from Naha. Their curiosity was roused by this; perhaps these were the Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata-the Islands of Gold and of Silver-said to lie far out in the Eastern Seas. Pires finished his great manuscript about 1515: in 1517 he set out as ambassador to the Emperor of China. He was escorted to Canton in a fleet commanded by Fernao Peres de Andrade, who ordered a subordinate commander (Jorge Mascarenhas) to proceed with a detachment of vessels up the coast of China to search for the fabled Ryukyu Islands. Mascarenhas got no farther than Fukien Province, where he was trading with profit at Amoy when orders overtook the squadron, directing him to return to Malacca.

The Portuguese were soon trading along the China coast and established themselves as far north as Ningpo, near the mouth of the Yangtse. Gradually they accumulated further data concerning Okinawa. The first book on China printed in Europe was brought out in 1569, the record of the Dominican Father Gaspar da Cruz. In it he noted that there had been misunderstanding concerning the location of the Ryukyus, and has this to say:

"It is an island which standeth in the sea of China, little more or less than thirty leagues from China itself. In this island live this people, which is a well-disposed people, more to the white than brown.

"It is a cleanly and well-attired people; they dress their hair like women, and tie it up on the side of their head, fastened with a silver bodkin. Their land is fresh and fertile, with many and good waters; and it is a people that sail very seldom although they are in the midst of the sea. They use weapons and wear very good short swords. They were in times past subject to the Chinas, with whom they had much communication, and therefore they are very like the Chinas.