Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the wisdom of God, will be appropriately applied and understood of the Son of God, in virtue of His being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth and the Resurrection: for all these titles are derived from His power and operations, and in none of them is there the slightest ground for understanding anything of a corporeal nature which might seem to denote either size, or form, or colour; for those children of men which appear among us, or those descendants of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those by whom they were begotten, or derive from those mothers, in whose wombs they are formed and nourished, whatever that is, which they bring into this life, and carry with them when they are born. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 4)

It is the fundamental function of the Son of God to bring Life, Word, Truth and Resurrection.

For Origen, these are the Platonic Forms (eide) of the Christ. The corporeal being known as Jesus was a "copy" of these essential forms.

Jesus was ephemeral, Christ is eternal. Jesus was in flux, Christ is permanent.

If Origen strictly follows the Platonic model he should say that Jesus was imperfect, while Christ is perfect. He does not go so far... at least not yet.

What would it mean for Jesus to be imperfect, even while being the perceptible expression of the perfect?