The God Culture Philippines Biblical History Library

THE GOD CULTURE PHILIPPINES BLOG | APRIL 3, 2025 AGAIN

Exposing the Deception: Another Misfire from the Blogger Who Hates the Sabbath

It appears the anonymous blogger who has spent years launching personal attacks, defamation, and distortion against The God Culture has once again responded to our formal theological rebuttal of his dishonest blog review on Rest: The Case for Sabbath. And, as expected, instead of addressing any actual arguments, he dives headfirst into the same tired tropes, mockery, and outright fabrication. Let us examine his so-called "response" in blog style, point by point, exposing the fallacies and outright deceit behind his words. Our blogs in this regards are being executed for a time by our team, not necessarily Tim, personally even, and it is for legal documentation purposes and transparency even offering warnings to this blogger for what we believe and are proving to be highly cyber criminal acts. His responding to each of our such statements prove extremely valuable in this effort as he affirms these as intended, purposeful acts and he deepens these as overtly criminal.

1. Hebrews 4: He Still Doesn’t Understand “Sabbatismos”

The blogger mischaracterizes our argument as claiming Hebrews 4 is "only" about the 7th-day Sabbath. Not true. We clearly demonstrate from the Greek word sabbatismos (Hebrews 4:9) that it refers to ongoing Sabbath-keeping. Remember the Greek name for Sabbath even today remains as Σάββατο (Sávvato) as well. That should not be a mystery to a supposed learned one, (he pretends to be). This is affirmed in BDAG and major Greek lexicons. He continues to spiritualize the text into oblivion, ignoring the context that makes a clear distinction between Joshua's rest (from Moses), creation rest, and a Sabbath that remains. This is not scholarly; it's eisegesis.

He also fails to explain how a Sabbath that "remains" (Heb. 4:9) is somehow metaphorical only. He avoids the Greek entirely, yet accuses us of poor scholarship. Irony. Additionally, he failed to even read the passage in context nor the Introduction of the book he slams in his own negligence. The passage very descriptively defines the Sabbath "that remains" (in the time this was written after Messiah's ascension, oops!), ties together the Sabbath of Creation as the Sabbath of Moses and David, as the same Sabbath Messiah kept and taught especially in Matthew 11:28-12:1 which is the specific passage referenced by the author of Hebrews. Joshua did not say that and one could not be more illiterate to suggest such.

2 & 3. Law of Moses vs. Law of the Spirit: Deliberate Confusion

Again, our teaching is clear:

• The Law of Sin and Death = sin nature (Romans 8:2).

• The Law of YHWH (Torah) = holy and good (Romans 7:12).

• The Law does not save, but it instructs (Romans 3:31). Another false accusation on the part of this illegitimate fake blogger.

The blogger selectively quotes out-of-context clips from our Sabbath Series, pretending we teach the Law redeems. We have consistently taught that salvation is only through Yahusha, and this is supposed to be a book review where the book clearly states that multiple times. That fact alone dismantles this entire strawman which purpose is to defame even admitted in this blog post oddly.

He accuses us of teaching salvation through the Law, then concedes that we teach it doesn't save. Which is it? This kind of contradiction exposes his bias, and that is not a small infraction in the public arena of publishing especially not when one proves a serial offender.

4. Church History: Repeating the Same Mistake

We pointed out his citation of the forged longer recension of Ignatius, a fact he completely ignores. Instead, he just restates the claim with no proof. He has no counter-argument and refuses to address the forged source. Instead, he launches into rhetoric about Constantine and accuses us of conspiracy theorizing while denying the entire historical record of Sunday being forced over time, also found in a full chapter of this book he either did not bother to read or perhaps has a disability that does not allow him to do so, such as Blogzilla-itis.

He continues asserting we're unfamiliar with Church Fathers yet admits we cite Joseph Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church. So again, he either did not read what we cited or is simply lying about what he knows we covered. We cover this in great detail in the book with over 200 historic references as well as over 1,000 scriptural references we took the time to count up before publishing, which approximation we recently affirmed. He seems challenged to count to 1,000 so frames that as yet another possible deception, but of course wouldn't know because, he either cannot count that high, or is afraid to do so as it proves true. An actual educated person would either count them, or shut their mouth without leveling charges and assaults. 

5. Research Methods: More Mockery, Zero Substance

He mocks our use of English dictionaries and Blue Letter Bible, then admits those tools are valid. He forgets that we also use Gesenius, Thayer, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and original Hebrew/Greek which we published in our 300-page Sourcebook. He pretends this doesn’t exist, again exposing his dishonesty. Blue Letter Bible is a publishing of the King James Bible being employed in this book, and his challenge of that publishing of the King James Bible is deeply flawed. Let us not forget his admission to publishing a review with post it calling Tim and Anna "Adulterers." Every sane person on all of earth, knows that is defamation at its worst and a very plain example. He will answer for that crime. 

He also falsely claims we never cite the Greek word plēroō in the book. That’s easily disproved in later chapters, but this blogger is clearly not interested in accuracy. He’s not correcting; he’s trying to degrade.

6. Fulfillment of the Law: He Doesn’t Understand Typology

He says we reduce "fulfill" to mean only "set an example." That’s false. We cover the Greek meaning (plēroō) and prophetic fulfillment in Yahusha's life. He pretends this isn't in the book, but readers can verify it is. This is not oversight—this is intentional deceit.

7. Libel: The Blogger Goes Too Far Again

The blogger again accuses Tim and Anna of adultery using twisted interpretations of divorce passages, ignoring the complex theological debates surrounding remarriage. Worse, he says this:

"If he did not teach that abominable, graceless, Christless doctrine then I would never have brought up his adulterous marriage, his beardless face, or his fat gut."

This is not theology. It is character assassination, body shaming, and potentially criminal religious harassment. He is not rebuking doctrine, he is slandering people, and digging his grave very stupidly in the legal arena.

He openly admits that because he disagrees with our doctrine, he feels justified in mocking appearances and launching personal attacks. That is textbook malice, and highly illegal. Certainly, there are mafia hit men who possess that same thinking, but it does not translate well to law enforcement, nor to a judge. 

8. Hebrews 7:12: Intentional Blindness

He insists we ignored Hebrews 7:12, despite the fact that we discuss the priesthood of Melchizedek at length—both in the book and across multiple video series. He conflates the Torah’s application under the Levitical priesthood with a complete abandonment of Torah itself, misrepresenting our clear teaching that the Levitical order was replaced—not continued—by the one and only eternal Priest after the order of Melchizedek. He spins this into the opposite of what we teach, which is false and potentially a willful act of misrepresentation.

Hebrews 7:12 does not declare the Torah obsolete; it states that a change in the priesthood necessitated a change in priestly administration—not a removal of YHWH’s instruction. And where is Melchizedek first found? Oops—Genesis. Which, last we checked, is Torah.

He inserts Replacement Theology into a passage that says nothing of the sort.

9. Research Ethics: Misrepresenting Our Sources

We never plagiarized. We cited SDA sources in footnotes and provided proper attribution. The blogger complains we cited Sean Pitman and then tries to claim this is intellectual theft. That is absurd, and he knows better but is cornered with his fraud being called out, trying to justify nonsense.

He uses Wikipedia in his blogs but criticizes us for quoting published research and Church history books. His standards are selective and self-serving, also demonstrating an overall pattern of deceit and intent to do harm. 

10. Doctrinal Bias & Sectarian Hate

He admits outright:

"I have no love for Sabbath keepers, Hebrew Roots believers or any other kind of heretics."

There it is. Yes, he actually wrote that. Can you imagine? This is not a theological critic. This is someone with a personal vendetta against anyone who keeps the Sabbath or dares to disagree with Constantine’s version of Christianity. He openly confesses his hatred and bias—no neutrality, no scholarly objectivity, just deep-rooted disdain.

And what exactly separates a Sabbath keeper in this context? Someone who chooses to rest, study, and dwell in the presence of the Creator for a day. That’s his definition of heresy? Spending a dedicated day with the Savior is now satanic? Imagine a pastor or clergy member actually discouraging their congregation from setting aside time to honor YHWH through worship and study. That is the absurdity of his position.

He repeatedly hurls the term “heretic,” calls Tim a liar, and mocks anyone who follows the Law of YHWH—yet claims to speak for Christ, who did the opposite. His own words condemn him, and by doubling down, he reveals a clear and potentially prosecutable pattern of malicious intent.

Note: One last thing, he even insults Brig. Gen. Casis who wrote the Foreward for this book claiming because he used a newer photo in his newer service, a second entry into the military, as a Colonel, that means he was never a Brig. Gen. Why? Because this illiterate blogger did no actual research to confirm or even read what it says. That uniform is with the Army, and his former position as Brig. Gen. was in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and accurate and honest. That is insane. No such evidence is produced, nor could it be as it is another libelous accusation, and there he goes again accusing with no facts, because his research skills suck, he has no theological grounding, and he has never produced the very credentials he demands of everyone else. Ask him to do so. 

Closing Thoughts

The blogger's April 2 post is not a rebuttal. It's an embarrassing meltdown. He ignores our actual points, makes a mockery of his primary method, and lashes out with personal insults, doctrinal hatred, and escalating slander. This is an observable pattern of behavior as he did with Columbus' proven rebuke of Marco Polo, he cannot disprove but ends with a big "nuh uh." Now, that's mature.

We ask again: who is really writing from a place of faith here?

• We cited the Greek.

• We provided primary sources.

• We addressed every claim in his original blog.

• He responded with personal mockery, false accusations, and zero actual exegesis. That is Pharisee behavior, not that of Yahusha.

As always, we will continue to correct the record. And we will not be intimidated by bloggers with a documented history of personal obsession, defamation, and mockery.

This is not critique. This is not theology. This is cyberlibel.

Let the record show the truth.

🔗 Related Resources & Final Note

For those seeking clarity and context beyond this blogger’s repeated distortions, we encourage you to explore our formal theological rebuttal of his original Rest: The Case for Sabbath review here:

👉 Read Our Formal Rebuttal to the Blog Review of REST

For those who wish to verify the depth and honesty of our research for themselves, we also provide our 300-page Sourcebook, containing extensive documentation and footnoted references for all our major publications:

👉 Access the Ophir Sourcebook (Free PDF)

We remain committed to transparency, scholarship, and truth—while exposing falsehoods and defending the integrity of our work. This blogger continues to act outside the bounds of ethical and theological critique, and as such, we will continue to respond for the sake of the record, our readers, and the law.

Let the record show. Truth stands. The slander will not.

—The God Culture Team

Yah Bless.