God is a Spirit...

[Valerie]

That is probably why the Shepherd of Hermas was not considered canonical-

Not in the final canon, which was determined after the Ante-Nicene Fathers. But Codex Sinaiticus has it, and so does Codex Claromontanus, so it was part of some versions of the Scriptures in the early Church.

Most Orthodox teaching is basically what John of Chrysostom taught, much later than that. The Constantinian Church is not the same thing as early Christianity.

But we're probably going in circles again ...

I think the Orthodox have a lot of teachings long before Chrysostom- it's amazing all the saints that they have teachings about that were even from Biblical times- the many names we read in the New Testament, they have much writing about and information- it's pretty interesting- yes we are probably going in circles- probably enough said- we are both at peace with where we are about this-

[silentreader]

As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Valerie, the original bunny trail, starting with this quoted post, had nothing to do with the pre-incarnate Word, but with what King N said. The opinion I expressed was that he probably did not name the fourth person as the One we know as the Son, because at this point in King N's life (if ever) he probably did not have the insight or understanding to do that.
This has never, as far as I am concerned, been about who the fourth person actually was.
And who it actually was would probably fit with Lester's OP, at least to some extent, whereas what King N said probably would not.
Not only that, but I think it would be reasonable to say that the Son of God was not yet the Son of God within our concept of time because within our concept of time He was not yet incarnate.
But I do agree that King N and Balaam's donkey had something in common in that they both probably ate grass at one time or another.

[lesterb]

Just to backtrack a bit: does Jesus have a different body today than he did before the incarnation? A body different from the rest of the trinity? Is that a heretical idea? Or is it moot?

[silentreader]

Just to backtrack a bit: does Jesus have a different body today than he did before the incarnation? A body different from the rest of the trinity? Is that a heretical idea? Or is it moot?

Are the marks of the nails still visible?

[Bootstrap]

Just to backtrack a bit: does Jesus have a different body today than he did before the incarnation? A body different from the rest of the trinity? Is that a heretical idea? Or is it moot?

Are the marks of the nails still visible?

Does this tell us anything?

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I think it tells us how we become like Jesus as he is now. If the "second man" (Jesus) is "from heaven", and our second birth means that we will "also bear the image of the man of heaven", then perhaps Jesus has again become as he was in the beginning. Or perhaps not, I'm really speculating here ...

[silentreader]

Just to backtrack a bit: does Jesus have a different body today than he did before the incarnation? A body different from the rest of the trinity? Is that a heretical idea? Or is it moot?

Are the marks of the nails still visible?

Does this tell us anything?

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I think it tells us how we become like Jesus as he is now. If the "second man" (Jesus) is "from heaven", and our second birth means that we will "also bear the image of the man of heaven", then perhaps Jesus has again become as he was in the beginning. Or perhaps not, I'm really speculating here ...

What is all involved in having been created "in the image of God," which was before the Incarnation?

[ohio jones]

... but I think we are much more all over the map today- then they were then- ...

Yeah, they pretty much ignored three or four whole continents.

[Valerie]

As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Valerie, the original bunny trail, starting with this quoted post, had nothing to do with the pre-incarnate Word, but with what King N said. The opinion I expressed was that he probably did not name the fourth person as the One we know as the Son, because at this point in King N's life (if ever) he probably did not have the insight or understanding to do that.
This has never, as far as I am concerned, been about who the fourth person actually was.
And who it actually was would probably fit with Lester's OP, at least to some extent, whereas what King N said probably would not.
Not only that, but I think it would be reasonable to say that the Son of God was not yet the Son of God within our concept of time because within our concept of time He was not yet incarnate.
But I do agree that King N and Balaam's donkey had something in common in that they both probably ate grass at one time or another.

You're absolutely right- it turned into 2 different discussions about the same passage- I'm sorry

[Valerie]

... but I think we are much more all over the map today- then they were then- ...

Yeah, they pretty much ignored three or four whole continents.

Spoken like true OJ!

[Valerie]

Just to backtrack a bit: does Jesus have a different body today than he did before the incarnation? A body different from the rest of the trinity? Is that a heretical idea? Or is it moot?

So what is a heretical idea? One that is different than what is commonly held to be true by the New Testament Church.
Do we know the common thought about your question here? To be honest, I have neither heard this question asked before like this nor read any writing about it- but since Jesus was pre-incarnate & then incarnate there were not '2' separate beings- there would no longer be a 'Trinity' but a foursome- but when the Pre-Incarnate Word became flesh- there was a change (The Word became flesh and dwelt among us). As Silentreader pointed out He had nail wounds in hands & His side was pierced.
We read that He was in more than one 'form' after His resurrection- He ascended & is sitting at the right hand of the Father- He did make appearances as He did in His pre-incarnate form, but it 'seems' like He wasn't always recognizable-
By Scripture it just doesn't seem clear & I haven't read anything about this- I don't think it's heretical to 'wonder' about things- just to state them as fact & gather a following afterwards- (correct?)