The God Culture: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son Meaning Birthed in the Flesh by a Woman

While it is true that Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture believes Jesus is the Son of God his doctrine of what that means exactly is quite heterodox. Rather than Christ being the eternally begotten Son of God Tim teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son because he was born in the flesh. Let's hear him and then break down why he is wrong. 

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

42:54 Why is Yahusha the only begotten son of Yahuah? Angels are called sons of Elohim or beneha Elohim. Uh, they're not begotten see they were not birthed they were created or really from the breath of Yahuah. We're going to get there. We know Enoch visited heaven and saw Yahusha there in spirit so he existed. Again, watch our Melchizedek videos as well as Answers in first Enoch especially the son of man. Awesome video, uh, that one of the most beautiful parts of first Enoch is his encounter seeing Messiah who was not even in the flesh yet thousands of years before in heaven. Wow! That was before the flood but Yahusha has been always since the beginning, right? Oh, wait a minute but that's that's, that's not anything strange to scripture because He said so right in Revelation. He said I am the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end. He has no beginning nor an end as Melchizedek the priest in an order of one because he's the only that could possibly qualify.  

44:10 So, how can He be the only begotten Son? Now, many try to go all the way back to creation and redefine what he was there but see we know Enoch saw the Son of Man in heaven and he was a spirit he was not in the flesh he was not begotten at creation he still wasn't, uh, you know almost a thousand years later or so so he wasn't begotten at creation. See, he was begotten in the days of Mary. We know this. That shouldn't be a surprise but again check your paradigm. Not sure how scholars can seem to read and understand that because it's really not that difficult but we've all been trapped in this paradigm of thinking that that meant somehow he had to have been birthed. Well, what a first time to be birthed again by Mary? Well, that's nonsense. I mean you know these things. Just logically think it through. It's, it's really easy to dispel, uh, unfortunately what is scholarship to many. This is in the New Testament and He is begotten entering Mary's womb and birth like the rest of us humans thus begotten. That's what that word always means in scripture. Talk about overcomplicating and there's so much of that we have to work through. They're trying to go back to creation and claim Yahuah had a child in the human sense. Uh, no that has always been erroneous and again Elohim is the Father and the Son in the beginning and really before that. That was the first day of creation

Restoring Creation Part 12 Who Is Elohim Gen. 11 Understood. First Day

Essentially Tim is denying the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Rather than Jesus being eternally begotten, according to Tim His begottenness relates to his birth in the flesh. Yet Tim says "the Father and the Son existed in the beginning and really before that." How did Jesus exist as Son before creation if His sonship is related to His fleshly birth? Tim does not say. 

The problem is the Bible says Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

That means the relationship between the Son and the Father is unchanging. There was NEVER a time that Christ was not the eternally begotten Son of God. To claim as Tim does that Christ's begottenness is a new characteristic related to his birth in the flesh and not an essential and unchanging part of His relationship to the Father is to say Jesus is NOT the same yesterday, and today, and forever.  It is to deny who Christ is. 

It is very evident that Tim does not understand the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ when he says:

They're trying to go back to creation and claim Yahuah had a child in the human sense. 

Who says this? Nobody. Tim is making it up. In fact this very objection Tim is making was brought up in the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. 

Third Theological Oration 

It is quite obvious The Father did not beget the Son "in the human sense." The very idea is ridiculous and the one making the objection simply shows he does not understand. Gregory says further:

IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it.

But, the objector says, the very form of the expression He begot and He was begotten, brings in the idea of a beginning of generation. But what if you do not use this expression, but say, He had been begotten from the beginning so as readily to evade your far-fetched and time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and especially is this the custom of Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past tense, and of the present; but even of the future, as for instance Why did the heathen rage? when they had not yet raged and they shall cross over the river on foot, where the meaning is they did cross over. It would be a long task to reckon up all the expressions of this kind which students have noticed.

The generation, begetting, of the Son of God is both passionless and incorporeal. It is asinine to think God would generate a son "in the human sense" because that would involve passion and corporealness which are attributes God does not posses. 

Finally Gregory says:

VIII. How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole? You will have to undergo much labour before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body — mind to soul, and reason to mind; and movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts of which you are compounded; and which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other. For those parts whose maturity comes later, yet received their laws at the time of conception. 

Tell me what these laws are? And do not even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God; for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own, yet you do not by any means know about God's. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God's? For in proportion as God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten?— I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.

Gregory's answer to those who deny the eternal generation of the Son of God because they do not understand it is indignation. 

Tim is a simple minded fool who denies the eternal generation of the Son of God because he does not understand it. He mocks those who believe it by claiming they teach the Father had a Son "in the human sense." Yet his teaching that Jesus is begotten because he took on flesh and was born introduces change to the one who is unchangeable. It is a subtle denial of the divinity of Christ. 

Not only that but the scriptures tell us exactly how Psalm 2:7, You are my son, this day have I begotten thee, is fulfilled. It is fulfilled in the resurrection. 

Romans 1:4 explains this even further by telling us the meaning is not that Christ became the Son on the day he resurrected but the event declared it for all the world to see. His Sonship is eternal but on that particular day His Sonship was revealed to the whole world by the resurrection.

It seems Tim is unaware of these scriptures which perfectly explain Psalm 2:7. And this is coming from a man who has been a Bible teacher for 30 years!

Timothy Jay Schwab's entire theological system is heretical. From denying the Holy Spirit is Divine, to denying the Trinity, and now denying that Jesus Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God it is more than clear that Tim has no idea who God is.