Incarnation OR Indwelling?

[Esther]

Didn't want to lose this discussion from another thread.

Posted by Mapleleaf

The Son was not a body in which God dwelt; the Son was God manifested in flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.


It is the difference between incarnation and indwelling.

In Christ, God did not indwell a man, God became a man.

The birth of Christ was a unique joining of absolute Deity with perfect humanity, and of this we say, great is the mystery of godliness."

[Esther]

in·dwell Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dwel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -dwelt, -dwell·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to inhabit.
2. to possess (a person), as a moral principle or motivating force: compassion that indwells the heart.
–verb (used without object) 3. to dwell (usually fol. by in).
4. to abide within, as a guiding force, motivating principle, etc. (usually fol. by in): a divine spirit indwelling in nature and the universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME indwellen. See in-1, dwell]

in·car·na·tion / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-kahr-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an incarnate being or form.
2. a living being embodying a deity or spirit.
3. assumption of human form or nature.
4. the Incarnation, (sometimes lowercase) Theology. the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is completely both God and man.
5. a person or thing regarded as embodying or exhibiting some quality, idea, or the like: The leading dancer is the incarnation of grace.
6. the act of incarnating.
7. state of being incarnated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME incarnacion < LL incarnātiōn- (s. of incarnātiō) equiv. to incarnāt(us) incarnate + -iōn- -ion]

[LUKE2447]

IMO it really doesn't matter as Jesus is simply the extention of the divine. He is the Word made flesh! He is a ACTUAL son while at the same time being the very expression of God's being. God had a Son literally! Don't filter the last statement just read it for what it is!

[OnTheFritz]

Fairly recently, I have come to believe that it was more of an indwelling than an incarnation.

I don't know if that falls into traditional oneness or not - probably not. I have heard several messages and discussions that talk about not minimizing Christ's human-ness, as it was the necessary component for him to die for our redemption. The indwelling concept is interesting to me in that it makes Jesus the perfect example of a human given over completely to the spirit of God. He was all God, but not all OF God. To me that makes him truly magnificent as it allows for the same fleshly desires and limitations that we have, but fully led by the spirit within him - as we should be.

[Cindy]

I believe Jesus was both.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Esther

Didn't want to lose this discussion from another thread.

Posted by Mapleleaf

The Son was not a body in which God dwelt; the Son was God manifested in flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.


It is the difference between incarnation and indwelling.

In Christ, God did not indwell a man, God became a man.

The birth of Christ was a unique joining of absolute Deity with perfect humanity, and of this we say, great is the mystery of godliness."

Maple Leaf is correct 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' The union of humanity and Deity. God and man becomng one yet distinct with BOTH natures.

[tbpew]

I posted a reply to this post from Maple Leaf (used as the thread start here):
.............
I disagree with this view because I disagree that God became a man.
God was manifested within creation by making his habitation within his only begotten son.
Manifestation is NOT an equivalent with BECOMING. (this is my long running discussion with Mizpeh).
God's WORD became flesh, God did not become flesh (God is a spirit)
One manifestation does not have its own will from another manifestation if both manifestations are sponsored by the same singular entity. Giving one manifestation a separate will from another manifestation has to stop...its WRONG because it is immediately contradictory.

Oneness teachers must evoke the same special exception clause that Trini teachers use....its a mystery requiring revelation.

Both schools of thought evoke the same mathematical silliness when speaking of the "Son"...using the phrase fully God and fully man, 100% God, 100% man. Hey, if you can put your brain on hold when your teacher brings that lesson, have at it....I can not.
................
My post provoked a reply from Maple Leaf that expressed considerable negative reaction to my position:

{supplied by MapleLeaf in the other thread:}
Well since you seem more interested in exchanging insults than conversation.

Your post is merely the gassy thoughts of a flatulent mind.

I really was NOT out to EXCHANGE insults and regret that I had that effect. Rather, I was out to say something that would try to change the track that the train is running on...."God became a man", is NOT a track you find in scripture.

God's word has always been a manifestation of God's person.
God's Word became flesh and dwelled among us.

God has been manifested in numerous ways throughout the scriptural record...but in these last days, God has spoken (is manifested) within creation by his Son (Heb 1:2)

manifest means to RENDER APPARENT.
Rendering something apparent that is not apparent does not equate to BECOMING the something (the vessel) used to render or reveal.

[Apprehended]

Mapleleaf is right, but I wonder if it is understood.


The Word was made (manifest) flesh. The Word became fulfilled in the flesh. Word came into reality in the flesh. NOT, the Word of God MORPHED or transmutated into flesh. There is a huge difference.

What Word was made manifest, or made flesh? Start from the beginning and every promise of the coming of Christ that can be found from Gen. 3:15 and onward such as Isa. 9:6 and many others, came into reality by His birth.

God was made manifest (became known) in the flesh...his Word came to pass in the flesh of a man.

[HappyTown]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I believe Jesus was both.

I believe I'm getting confused

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by DerrickS

Fairly recently, I have come to believe that it was more of an indwelling than an incarnation.

I don't know if that falls into traditional oneness or not - probably not. I have heard several messages and discussions that talk about not minimizing Christ's human-ness, as it was the necessary component for him to die for our redemption. The indwelling concept is interesting to me in that it makes Jesus the perfect example of a human given over completely to the spirit of God. He was all God, but not all OF God. To me that makes him truly magnificent as it allows for the same fleshly desires and limitations that we have, but fully led by the spirit within him - as we should be.

DerrickS,
stay the course, being fully led by the spirit that is within you.
If somebody says "you are not oneness", don't take it as point needing to be defended.

Godliness is the privilege of the creature being partaker in the divine purpose.

Our 'joint heir' gave a clear perspective when he witnessed:
The words which I speak are not my own, but the father who has sent me, he does the works. (see John 14:10)

It is what indwells the vessel that has the words of eternal life.
The vessel has no ability or power in and of itself to do the works.
God has made his habitation (indwelling) in the hearts of men, by his spirit.