references on the heavenly or celestial flesh doctrine

[Steven Avery]

The foundation to really counter this error focuses on Virgin Birth.
And the sinless nature of Jesus Christ being due to sin being passed down through the man.
Thus Jesus could be the sinless human Messiah with the full complement of the humanity of Mary.

We will look at Arthur Custance, and any complementary sources describing the "seed of the woman">

And we look at the various ways that Christianity has attempted to explain the sinlessness of Jesus.

Also the chromosones as discovered by Ron Wyatt, and other sources.

===================================

Divine Blood Doctrine
by E. A. Green
https://web.archive.org/web/20060213131933/http://home.sprynet.com:80/~eagreen/blood.html

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven
By Paul Thomas
https://books.google.com/books?id=m_2OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40

SA: Sample- p. 40
Thomas mangles Galatians 4:4, rejects the pure and accurate AV text, and even goes to the unbeliever Ehrman for a textual variant.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman,
made under the law,

They emphasize that “made of a woman” can only mean that Jesus was a genuine human being sharing in the genetic make-up of the woman. There is a simple straightforward answer to this. No other English translation uses “made of..” for the Greek ginomai which is translated “born of...”. Born of a woman approximates the original because what does it mean to say that Jesus was “made under the law”? In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D.Ehrman, exposes how the dominant Christian faction of the time blatantly changed certain texts in the Bible to align with their Christology (study of the nature of Christ). Significantly, one of the texts they tampered with was Galatians 4:4 (Ehrman 1996) in order to make it say that Jesus was of the race of Adam. What we need is Christians who have the audacity to refuse to submit to the traditional dogmatic church rule when it clashes with the testimony of Scripture (Bockmuehl 1980, 30).​

​

To make this even worse, Ehrman does not even make a case that the AV Greek text is not the original.

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1996)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HGpL9x19GaEC&pg=PA239

The Greek "γενόμενον ἐκ γυναῖκος, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον"

We will put other sections from the Paul Thomas book here:

p. 96 - Chalfant and Teklemariam also p. 16-17 88 and the intro to ch. 2 p. 32-33
https://books.google.com/books?id=m_2OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA96

CONTENDING FOR FAITH
~ The Received Text ~
ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS
CHAPTER XVI
ANABAPTIST UNITARIANS
Barbara Aho
https://web.archive.org/web/20120229005035/http://watch.pair.com/TR-15-anabaptist-unitarians.html

Socinus’ uncle, Lelio Sozzini, had been a colleague of Michael Servetus, the Unitarian heretic whom John Calvin had burned at the stake. Servetus also taught that Jesus had “heavenly flesh,” according to Reformed theologian, Harold O.J. Brown:

“The heritage of Menno Simons is perpetuated and honored in Mennonite communities scattered throughout North America, and existing to a lesser extent in Europe and the Soviet Union, and South America. A different fate awaited one of the most brilliant and eccentric advocates of a heavenly-flesh doctrine, the Spanish physician Michael Servetus. Servetus has gone down in church and secular history as a martyr to Calvinistic intolerance; his execution in Geneva represents a stain that Reformed Protestantism has never quite been able to efface.

“As a young man, Servetus propounded the distinctive views that ultimately led him the stake: his On the Errors of the Trinity appeared in 1531. He held God to be one Person only; this God was the literal, natural father of Jesus Christ, who was therefore God’s natural Son. The body of Christ is the body of the godhead... divine and of the substance of deity. According to Servetus, when the Word became flesh, he brought his flesh down with him from heaven. Although Servetus denied the deity and preexistence of Christ…he was unable to conceive of him as a mere man, even as one adopted by God, but had to postulate a direct, natural relationship with God.” (Heresies; p. 330)

A Review of Bible Writer’s Theology by Teklemariam
William M. Chalfant - August 9, 2007.
https://www.apostolic.edu/a-review-of-bible-writers-theology-by-teklemariam/

The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine
Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/comserv.html

Against The Star Trek Christology
https://heidelblog.net/2017/06/against-the-star-trek-christology/

The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism (2014)
https://books.google.com/books?id=wNEHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA69

Teklemariam indicates that his motivation for writing the book was in response to the publication of Gregory A. Boyd's critique of Oneness theology, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992). He also acknowledges there are "similarities" between his Christology and Coptic doctrine but also differences. Interview, Awassa, Ethiopia, March 11, 2012.

Global Renewal Christianity: Europe and North America Spirit Empowered Movements: Past, Present, and Future (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_0mzDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA367

In 1999, Teklemariam surprised many outside Ethiopia with the publication of Bible Writers’ Theology, a major treatment of his distinctive Christology.28 He retains most of his inherited Oneness doctrines, including the name, divine tri-unity in manifestation only, as well as near ubiquitous misunderstanding of the meaning of persons in the Godhead.29

Most controversial is Teklemariam’s theology of the one nature, or “divine flesh,” of Christ, faintly echoing the teaching of Christ’s one nature in the ancient Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo (meaning “unified”) Church. In brief, it is a controversial version of the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability, the belief that Christ was unable to sin, a view held by certain conservative Reformed theologians.30 Following the trajectory of some early fundamentalists, the essential element in the Atonement is the human purity of Christ, the sacrificial Lamb.

Whether or not Jesus was really tempted in His incarnate state is irrelevant. For fundamentalists, the corrupt biological line from Adam was bypassed by means of the Virgin Birth, wherein God provided the one thing necessary for redemption, an unblemished Lamb. Teklemariam affirms the pure-blood theory but adds to it the redemptive need for unadulterated flesh. Since the Adamic flesh is worthless for redemption, God provided “divine” flesh. Teklemariam explains it this way: “God the Father has flesh, blood and bones. These three are inseparable for eternity.”31 Teklemariam is here affirming that God is by nature incarnate-able, in itself an orthodox position. The Word within the eternal Father is potentially flesh, blood, and bone. The Incarnation is that divine Word acting in history. The redemptive significance is that Jesus’s sacrifice is efficacious to atone for sins precisely because he is the Word of God made flesh, blood, and bones.

It is not evident whether Teklemariam’s “heavenly flesh” doctrine is at root a Docetic Christology or a novel but valid account ofthe Incarnation. It is premised upon an already widespread view of the need for a redemptively pure vessel and may be an idiosyncratic version of the impeccability Christology. There is another possibility. Teklemariam may have been introduced to the “divine flesh” teaching during two summer theological programs conducted by a Mennonite Bible academy.32 A near-identical teaching circulated among certain early Anabaptists, including Menno Simons. In the end, Teklemariam’s Christology was not able to be assimilated within UPCI Oneness doctrine. He was excommunicated from
UPCI in 2003, immediately upon which the ACE followed him.33

 

[Steven Avery]

radical reformation proponents of heavenly flesh

Caspar Schwenkfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Schwenckfeld
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kaspar-Schwenckfeld-von-Ossig

Valentin Krautwald - (1465-1545)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Krautwald

Melchior Hoffman

Menno Simons

THE ANABAPTISTS AND THE REFORMATION (1998)
Chris Good
https://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm

Schwenkfeld also promoted the doctrine of the Celestial Flesh of Christ - that his humanity came from God, not Mary. He argued this from the fact that Christ was "begotten", not "created" in an attempt to counter anti-trinitarianism.

... Melchior Hofmann (1500?-1543?): ... he began to preach, albeit with a mystical emphasis. ... he claimed to be one of the witnesses of Revelation 11:3, and that Strassburg would become the New Jerusalem of the Millennial Kingdom in 1533. ... He also emphasised the Celestial Flesh doctrines of Schwenkfeld...Hofmann's followers became known as Melchiorites

Menno Simons took the Melchiorite movement back to the teachings of the original Swiss Evangelical Anabaptists with a strong emphasis on Scripture alone. Rejecting the "Inner Light" doctrine of the Spiritualists, Menno emphasised that the Holy Spirit's works of illumination, regeneration and sanctification came through the preached Word and the sacraments. As a result Menno also emphasised the visible church, along with church discipline. Membership was to be guarded by believer baptism and the "Ban". However, Menno was unable to shake off some of the Melchiorite doctrinal aberrations, such as the "Celestial Flesh" and soul-sleep doctrines. Even here though, he was prepared to go no further than the statements of Scripture, and refused to allow these doctrines to become a divisive matter.

• Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is authoritative)
  
• Voluntaristic and congregational view of the visible church
  
• Believer baptism
• Practice of the ban
  
• Celestial flesh of Christ
  
• Original sin of children forgiven in Christ until age of discernment
  
• Free will view of regeneration
  
• Soul sleep

more

======================

Kaspar Schwenkfeld took a Separate Path
Diana Severance. {J D. edoted bu Dan Graves, MSL
https://www.christianity.com/church...chwenkfeld-took-a-separate-path-11630004.html

He consciously strove to remain orthodox. Nonetheless, in 1541, when he published his Great Confession on the Glory of Christ, many considered the work heretical. He aimed at teaching people to unite with the real, living, spiritual Christ so that their lives would truly change. His position was more subtle than can be explained in this short article, but he taught that Christ has two natures, divine and human, the human nature being a kind of "celestial flesh" not fallen like ours. Jesus' human flesh was increasingly divinized while he was on earth, so he was eventually transfigured, resurrected and taken up to heavenly glory. It was Christ's invisible glorified flesh which Caspar thought believers ate at the Lord's Supper. Because of this view, his followers often called themselves "Confessors of the Glory of Christ."

check email
Expdis 6:3
Elberfelder c. 1855 - Yahwe

temp -separate issue - Jehovah in German Bibles