In the first few centuries, there appears to have been many Christian currents in the Mediterranean and Near East. While Christology was often not a sound basis to delineate between these groups (as views were changing and evolving), there is arguably some large bins we can bring to bear. This included Monophysitism, of which, perhaps the Docetist view was the most well-known (Marcion). This Christology holds that Christ had only one nature (the divine) and that his body was a phantasm or optical illusion. A very different view was that of the Adoptionists, asserting that Christ had no divine nature other than what was bestowed to him by God ad hoc. The Ebionites were known to adhere to this view. Either of these, clearly, contrasts starkly with what become the orthodox stance of the dual nature of Christ, that he is simultaneously divine and human.
I would like to research further into whether or not there was ever a legacy Christology that held that Christ had only one nature (the divine) but was flesh and blood. I'm not sure it exists, so I will term it as a "theoretical Christology" for now. It would be distinct from the above in the following ways:
- Docetist: Docetist view of the body as an apparition, whereas this theoretical Christology implies Christ does indeed have flesh and blood
- Adoptionist: Adoptionists hold there is no innate divine nature whereas this theoretical Christology would imply a divine nature (just in flesh form)
- Dyophysitism: The orthodox view is that there is a dual nature whereas this theoretical Christology would hold that Christ only has one divine nature (just in flesh form)
I concede that, to the modern reader, "Divine flesh" sounds like a contradiction in terms. Perhaps Saturninus, or to an extent Heracleon would fit under this theoretical category, but I don't think they are perfect fits. It could be the case that there are no perfect matches. But again, theoretically, if archaeologists unearthed such a doctrine tomorrow, no matter how bizarre it sounds to us, we would need the framework to analyze it.
The closest I could get was Apollinarist, where Christ has a human body but a divine mind. However this seems to assume that his body is not at all divine and the divine nature is limited to his mind.
Is there a Christology that lays out the prosopon in such a way that Christ is thought of as divine only, even though he is flesh? (That is to say he has no mortal/man nature, despite being flesh and blood?)