Difference?.....I harmonize the scriptures, not just pick the first portion of John 1:14, and build a doctrine around it.
The question isn’t whether God was in Christ. He was. The Father was in the Son and the Son was in the Father. Neither is it a question of whether the Father ever received anything divine from the Son. Clearly, everything that came from the Son was received from the Father. The question is whether the Son is a separate divine person from the Father.
I could see the harmony in your belief if it were not written in Scripture that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. Jesus Christ could be defined as the Father (Spirit) in the Son (divinely created flesh, with a soul).
But it is written in Scripture that the Word, which was God, became flesh, and I do not see how your explanations that God is not flesh are in harmony with what is written in Scripture.
**But it is written in Scripture that the Word, which was God, became flesh,**
The Son said that the words, and the doctrine, weren’t his, but the Father’s. The following references tell whose ‘words’ they were: John 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
And the doctrine: John 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”
The Word is actually the will of the Father. The Son (flesh with a soul) is his chosen means of expressing his will in these last days (Heb. 1:1-3).
You have a body to express your will. The Father didn’t, but chose to make one; the original one, complete with a soul (a will of his own, but would be obedient to the Father that dwelt in him).