Does God have a Physical Body? A Mindful Latter-day Saint Apologetic Response to Seth of Theology with Seth

 

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (Jn 17:3, KJV)

Hello, friends! Welcome to the Mindful Latter-day Saint Christian Living and Apologetics Channel, I am your host - Timothy R. Berman, where we explore faith with curiosity and an open heart. Today, we’re tackling a profound question: Does God the Father have a physical body? This is a response to a thought-provoking video by Seth from Theology of Seth titled “Is God an Exalted Man? (A Christian Response to Mormonism).” Seth argues that God is purely spirit, without a physical body, contrasting this with the Latter-day Saint belief that God has a glorified body of flesh and bone.  I respect Seth’s dedication to scripture and his desire to share his faith. His arguments are worth engaging with, so let’s dive in with a biblically grounded LDS perspective. We’ll address his points using scripture, scholarly insights, and resources like Faith Answers, Informed Responses to show how our belief aligns with biblical truth. Our aim is to clarify, correct misunderstandings, and invite respectful conversation. If you’re new here, please subscribe and join us on this faith journey. Let’s begin!

I admire Seth’s passion for scripture and his desire to share his faith. His video raises important points that deserve a respectful, biblically grounded reply from a Latter-day Saint perspective. So, let’s unpack his arguments, examine the scriptures, and weave in insights from scholarly blog posts like “Does the Bible Teach that God is a Spirit According to John 4:24?” and “Was God Ever a Man?” Our goal? To clarify what we believe, address possible misunderstandings, and invite dialogue—all with an open heart.  

If you’re new here, hit that subscribe button and join us on this journey of faith. Let’s get started!

Nature of God - What Does it Matter?

Does the Bible teach that God is Anthropomorphic - Exalted - and Divine?

Seth’s video centers on a few core arguments:

• God is spirit, not physical - based on John 4:24 and Luke 24:39

• A Physical God can’t be omnipresent - If God has a body, He’s limited, not everywhere at once

• The Holy Ghost inconsistency - Latter-day Saints say a body is needed for godhood, so why doesn’t the Holy Spirit have one?

• Biblical Warnings - verses like Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16 imply God isn’t physical

• Anthropomorphisms are figurative - God’s “hands” or “Eyes” in scripture are not literal

• The Incarnation applies only to Jesus - not God the Father, per Trinitarian theology

Seth concludes that Mormonism’s view of God as an exalted man is unbiblical. But are these arguments as airtight as they seem? Let’s explore them one by one, starting with the nature of God.

Is “God a Spirit” a Slam Dunk?

Seth leans heavily on John 4:24, where Jesus says, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” He interprets this as proof that God is purely spirit, no body allowed. But let’s dig into the context—because context is king in biblical interpretation.  

In John 4, Jesus is chatting with a Samaritan woman about worship locations—mountain or Jerusalem. He shifts the focus: it’s not where you worship, but how—in spirit and truth. The blog “Does the Bible Teach that God is a Spirit According to John 4:24?” nails this: Jesus is talking about the spiritual nature of worship, not defining God’s entire being ontologically. To jump from “God is spirit” to “God has no body” might be a hasty generalization fallacy—assuming a single attribute excludes all others.  

He does provide the context of John 4 - yet missteps with the typical Evangelical Eisegesis Interpretation

• Spirit in John 4:24 is used twice:
•  πνεῦμα - pneuma: Spirit, wind, breath
• 1909 Pure Cambridge ed KJV - 2 Cor. 3.17 is cited
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” v. 18 “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the Glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord.”
• Paul opens up 2 Corinthians 3 with how the Gentile Christians at Corinth were “epistles written on our hearts” (v. 2) and an “epistle of Christ” (v.3) and that they were “written not with ink, but with the spirit of the Living God; not on tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart” (v.3). 
• The context of 2 Cor. 3 describes the glory of the new covenant and the transformation that takes place in the lives of believers through the Holy Spirit
• The Greek nuance here is reflective of worship - and to whom worship is owed - God. 
• God is invisible (Col. 1:15 describes the Son in the “mirror image and likeness” of the invisible God - who is the Father. 
• Worshiping God is not about external rituals or places - it is about a true and genuine spiritual connection
• Worshiping in Spirit and truth is done sincerely, from the inner being, and according to God’s revealed truth

Correspondence between 2 Corinthians 3;17-18 and John 4:24

• God’s invisible - spiritual nature: (John 4:24) is the same divine reality Paul refers to by affirming “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). Both underscore that God’s nature transcends mortal physicality.
• Worship “in spirit and truth”: John 4:24b) requires individuals to be led by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within believers (2 Corinthians 3), enabling worship that is genuine, heartfelt, and aligned with God’s truth from Scripture. 
• Spiritual Freedom: in 2 Corinthians 3 - the Apostle Paul aligns the liberation Jesus promises to true worshipers who engage God beyond any legalistic or ritualistic confines, reflecting the nature of “spirit and truth” of worship in John 4:24. 
• Authentic connection and worshiping of God come through the Spirit’s indwelling presence: Together, 2 Corinthians 3 and John 4 teaches a relational dynamic between believers and God. 
• Worship becomes a matter of the heart and spirit - empowered by the Holy Spirit who guides us into all understanding (John 14:26) and sincere adoration. 
• Believers experience freedom because the Spirit transforms them and frees them from sin and death, as well as religious burdens prescribed by Judaic Law (2 Corinthians 3:17)
• True worship requires both Spirit-led sincerity and adherence to God’s revelation through Scripture and modern-day Prophets and Apostles.
• This harmonizes inner experience with personal divine revelation 
• John 4 and 2 Corinthians 3 affirm that God’s spiritual nature demands worship and relationship initiated and empowered by the spirit, producing authentic worship and true freedom for believers

Think about it: 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love.” Does that mean God is only love, nothing else? No—it’s one aspect of His nature. Similarly, “God is spirit” highlights His spiritual essence, not a denial of physical form. Plus, in John 14:9, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” If Jesus has a body—and He does, post-resurrection—couldn’t that hint at the Father’s nature too?  

Seth pairs this with Luke 24:39: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Fair point—Jesus is proving His resurrection here, not describing the Father. But does this rule out a glorified, physical God? Not necessarily. Let’s hold that thought.

HOW CAN A PHYSICALLY EXALTED RESURRECTED GOD BE OMNIPRESENT?

SETH MISSES THE MARK ON LDS COSMOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF GOD

Seth argues that a physical body means God can’t be omnipresent—everywhere at once. He cites Psalm 139: “Where shall I go from thy spirit?” and Jeremiah 23:24: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” In Mormonism, he says, God’s stuck on a planet near Kolob, far from us.  

Here’s where a strawman fallacy might creep in—misrepresenting our belief. Latter-day Saints don’t see God as limited by His body. Doctrine and Covenants 88:7-13 explains that God’s influence—through the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost—permeates all creation. His physical presence may be localized, but His power and awareness are infinite.  

The blog “God and the Godhead: A Mindful Latter-day Saint Apologetic Perspective” supports this: God’s “fatherly care” extends universally, not confined by physicality. Scholars like Francesca Stavrakopoulou, in God: An Anatomy (cited in Petersen’s review), argue that ancient Israelites saw God as both physical and transcendent walking in Eden yet ruling all. So, omnipresence and a body aren’t mutually exclusive—it’s about how God operates, not where He’s stuck.

• He cites Psalms 139: “Where shall i go from thy spirit?”
• He also cites Jeremiah 23:24 “Do I not fill heaven and earth?”
• He misrepresents LDS understanding stating that God resides on a planet - when in reality - God’s throne is near the star Kolob:
• "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; . . . And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (Abraham 3:2, 9; emphasis added)
• Doctrine and Covenants 88:7-13 teaches that God’s influence - via the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit - fills the universe. His physical body does not limit His very power and awareness. 
• Deuteronomy calls God a “all-consuming fire,” yet fire has form and still spreads. 
• 1 John 1:5 says, “God is light,” which is both tangible and pervasive
• A resurrected and glorified body does not trap God - it is how He interacts with creation while remaining infinite.
• Scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou notes that ancient Israelites saw God as an anthropomorphic being yet transcendent - walking in Eden, yet ruling all. 
• Latter-day Saint teaching of God’s anthropomorphic nature aligns with this Biblical Duality - not limitation

Reason the Holy Spirit Does not have a resurrected Body

Is Seth Correct regarding the LDS view on the Holy Spirit? Seth appears to beg the question: “If a body is key to Godhood, why is the Holy Spirit a Spirit?

Seth raises a great question: If Mormons believe a body is essential for progression to godhood, why is the Holy Ghost a spirit? He suggests this is a contradiction, a false dilemma fallacy—assuming it’s either/or without nuance.  

In LDS theology, the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are distinct beings with unique roles. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 says the Father and Son have glorified bodies, but the Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit” to fulfill His mission: testifying, comforting, and guiding universally. The blog “The Embodiment of God and the Holy Ghost” explains this via Ronald E. Bartholomew’s research: His spirit nature enables Him to “dwell in us” as an influence, not a literal indwelling.  

Progression applies to mortals striving for exaltation—us, not the Godhead. The Holy Ghost’s divine status isn’t diminished; His role is specialized. Seth’s point is valid to question, but it doesn’t dismantle our view—it highlights the Godhead’s harmony.

• He argues, based on D&C 130:22 - and the revelation of the Holy Spirit being a “personage of spirit” and not a resurrected, glorified, and exalted being appears contradictory
• This is not an inconsistent doctrine as Seth attempts to lead on
• Seth sets up a strawman argument via quote mining regarding the Lectures of Faith that were at one time included in the original Book of Commandments (now Doctrine and Covenants)
• Critics, like Seth, attempt to charge that since LDS doctrine teaches a body is required for exaltation, the Holy Spirit cannot be fully God - because he does not have a physical body.
• Yes, D&C 93:33 (and other scriptures) teach a body is necessary for a fullness of Joy
• It is speculated that at some point - the Holy Spirit may receive a resurrected body at some point. 
• Joseph Fielding Smith observed that one ought to “avoid speculating on destiny of the Spirit” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 39)
• Joseph Smith proclaimed that the Holy Spirit will eventually receive a resurrected body: “Joseph Smith said the Holy Ghost will one day receive a body. He said: “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997) See also: The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 382.]
• The Holy Spirit actually does have a body - it is a spiritual body, not a resurrected body
• It should be worthy to point out that in LDS thought, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by pure eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 131:7-8). Why exactly the Holy Ghost has not received His Body lies in the realm of speculation.

Do Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16 Deny an anthropomorphic God?

Seth cites Hosea 11:9—“I am God and not man”—and Deuteronomy 4:15-16, where God warns against making images since no form was seen at Horeb. He sees these as proof God isn’t physical. But is that the full story?  

The blog “Was God Ever a Man?” offers a steelman: In Hosea 11, God’s contrasting His mercy with human fickleness—He won’t destroy Israel despite their rebellion. It’s about character, not ontology. Assuming it denies a body might be eisegesis—reading into the text what isn’t there. Similarly, Deuteronomy 4 is about idolatry, not God’s nature. God didn’t show a form then, but elsewhere—like Genesis 18, where He eats with Abraham—He does.  

Mark S. Smith’s The Early History of God (noted in “The Embodiment of God”) shows ancient Israelites saw Yahweh as anthropomorphic—enthroned, tangible—before later abstraction. Hosea and Deuteronomy don’t disprove a physical God; they emphasize His holiness and uniqueness.

God’s Throne - God’s Nature

Point of fact: The Pesachim 54:11 and the Bereshit Rahab both reason that one of the phenomena of creation is the very Throne of Glory prior to the creation of this Earth. This idea seems to mirror the hints we find through Christ himself in answering the mother of the two sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20 where he says that the Father prepares a place for those who will receive such honor - a throne of Glory (Matthew 20:20-23; Mark 10:35-45). 

The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat.

And from Bereshit Rahab 1:

In the beginning, God created” – six items preceded the creation of the world; some of them were [actually] created, and some of them God contemplated creating, [though He did not actually do so]. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. Torah, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “The Lord made me at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). The Throne of Glory, from where is it derived? “Your throne stands firm from earliest time, [You are from eternity]” (Psalms 93:2). 

Here, the question is begged - if God is without beginning or end, and unchanging - then how come these Jewish commentaries that are authoritative give the notion that the Throne of Glory was created? Does this not imply that prior to their creation - such a throne had not existed? Furthermore, does it bring up another question - If the Father of Christ, and the father of us all, is preparing (creating) thrones of glory - one of which Christ will receive through divine inheritance - what does that say in relation to us as we are heirs and joint heirs with through Christ? (Romans 8:17).

In Jewish tradition, several prophets, including Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, were granted extraordinary visions of God seated on a throne, referred to in Hebrew as "kisse." These visions highlight the majesty and supreme authority of God over creation. The Jewish Virtual Library provides a detailed entry on this theme:

The vision of God sitting on a throne (kisse) is described by several prophets, among them Micaiah (I Kings 22:19), Isaiah (Isa. 6), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1), and Daniel (Dan. 7:9). Talmudic and midrashic sources developed this theme further, and it entered into religious poetry, liturgy, and mystical heikhalot tracts of the early centuries C.E., which speak of the throne as the merkavah, or "chariot" (see *Merkabah Mysticism). Among Jewish philosophers, Saadiah and Maimonides, who objected to all anthropomorphic descriptions of God, attempted to explain the visions of the throne allegorically, in contrast to Judah Halevi who accepted a more literal interpretation of the chariot vision (Kuzari, 3:65) and who used the image of the throne in his religious poems.

This diversity of interpretation reflects the richness of Jewish thought. Philosophers like Saadiah and Maimonides sought to distance these visions from physical depictions of God, favoring symbolic meanings, while Judah Halevi embraced a more tangible understanding, weaving the throne imagery into his poetic expressions of faith. Regardless of approach, these visions underscore the Throne of Glory as a powerful symbol of divine rule.

Among these prophetic accounts, Ezekiel’s vision stands out for its vividness and depth, offering a striking portrayal of God’s divine glory enthroned. Recorded in Ezekiel 1:1-28 and 3:12, this inaugural vision and commission bring Ezekiel as close as possible to perceiving God directly. He witnesses God’s throne, hears its movement, and is overwhelmed by the divine Presence. This passage serves as the haftarah reading for Exodus 19:1-20:23, recited on the first day of Shavuot, the festival commemorating the Torah’s revelation at Mount Sinai.

Rabbinic tradition calls this narrative "the episode of the chariot" due to its use of imagery linked to the Ark of the Covenant, which 1 Chronicles 28:18 describes as God’s chariot (see also Psalms 68:18; 18:11). The Ark, often depicted as the place where the "Lord of Hosts is enthroned on the cherubim" (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:6), connects Ezekiel’s vision to the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This linkage aligns with Pesachim 54:11, which states that the Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before all else, uniting God’s heavenly throne with His earthly sanctuary.

Given the profound and sensitive nature of this material, the Mishnah stipulates that it should only be expounded by a "sage that understands his own knowledge"—a scholar fully versed in Jewish tradition. This restriction underscores the need for careful interpretation to avoid misrepresentation of God’s nature.

The Jewish Study Bible’s commentary on Ezekiel 1:4-28a (p. 1045) notes that this vision of God’s Throne Chariot draws heavily on the imagery of the Holy of Holies, reinforcing the connection to the Temple’s preeminent creation. In verses 26-28 (p. 1048), Ezekiel offers a detailed description of the divine Presence:

(26) Sapphire (possibly lapis lazuli), see Exodus 24:10, which employs the imagery of blue sapphire or lapis to depict the pavement under God’s feet, which humans see as the sky. (27) Gleam as of amber and fire convey the power and incorporeality of the divine Presence. (28) The rainbow symbolizes God’s covenant with creation (see Genesis 9:8-17). The Presence of the Lord, a priestly term for God’s glory (Exodus 16:6-7; 40:34-38). The voice of someone speaking: Cf. 1 Kings 19:12, which portrays the Divine Presence as "a still small voice" or "a soft murmuring sound." Ezekiel, in a sign of reverence and fear, lies prostrate before the Ark in the Holy of Holies of the Temple (1 Kings 8:54; Psalm 5:8; 99:5; 132:7; 138:2; 1 Chronicles 16:29; 2 Chronicles 20:5-18).

Ezekiel sees a figure on the throne resembling a man, with a lower part like fire and an upper part gleaming like amber, symbolizing God’s power and transcendence. The rainbow encircling the throne recalls God’s covenant with humanity (Genesis 9:8-17), while the "voice of someone speaking" evokes the "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12. In awe and reverence, Ezekiel falls prostrate, mirroring the posture of worship before the Ark in the Temple’s innermost sanctuary.

The Throne of Glory thus embodies God’s divine sovereignty, majesty, and authority over all creation. This concept extends into Christian theology, where the throne signifies the preeminence of Christ, described as the Creator of all things in Colossians 1:16. Furthermore, Revelation 3:21 promises that those who overcome, as Christ has, will sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with the Father. This foreshadows a future where believers share in Christ’s glory and authority, fulfilling the divine plan initiated before creation.

In both Jewish and Christian traditions, the Throne of Glory represents God’s ultimate governance. Ezekiel’s vision, with its rich imagery and theological depth, bridges the heavenly and earthly realms, while Christ’s role as Creator and the promise of shared glory expands its significance, offering a vision of divine sovereignty that transcends time and creation itself.

• Seth attempts to reason from Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16
• Seth points to Hosea 11:9 - “I am God and not man”
• Seth also points to Deuteronomy 4:15 - 16, where no form was seen at Horeb, arguing God is not physical
• Seth argues that context matters - and yet fails to follow his own understanding of appealing to the context of scripture here
• Hosea (as I have mentioned in a previous video and blog post) contrasts God’s mercy with human weakness - He won’t destroy Israel despite their sin. 
• Deuteronomy 4 warns of idolatry - not God’s very nature
• Genesis 18 reveals that God appeared to Abram (YHWH - Pre-incarnate Christ and two angels/messengers 
• Mark S. Smith’s research reveals early Israelites viewed God as anthropomorphic - tangible and enthroned
• Genesis 1:26-27 Hebrew literally means - exact image and likeness of God in nature and being. 
• Critics fail to understand that throughout the Old and New Testament - God is described as “Sitting on a Throne”. 
• Thrones depict divine authority, supremacy, and divine presence
• God is described as seated before a divine council (e.g. Job 1, 2). 
• Christ is seated on a throne of Glory with the Father (Revelation 3:21)
• God’s throne is tied to the Holy of Holies - the Ark of the Covenant - and Davidic King’s Throne
• Christ taught that the Apostles themselves will be seated with Christ on Divine Thrones of Glory (Matthew 19)
• Christ also taught that the “Father prepares a place” for those who will receive “thrones of Glory” (Matthew 20). 
• Pesachim 54:11 and Bereshit Rahab 1 all refer to God’s Throne of Glory coming into existence - being created

Is it Figurative or Literal?

Seth says biblical mentions of God’s “hands” or “eyes”—like Psalm 8 or Proverbs 15—are figurative, not literal. He warns against a “woodenly literal” view, citing wings and feathers as absurd if taken literally. Fair critique—context matters.  But here’s a slippery slope fallacy risk: dismissing all anthropomorphisms as metaphors might overlook intent. 

Exodus 33:11—God speaks to Moses “face to face”—and Acts 7:56—Stephen sees Jesus at God’s right hand. Are these just poetic? Scholarly work, like Stavrakopoulou’s, suggests early biblical writers meant them as real descriptors of a relatable God.  

In LDS theology, Genesis 1:26-27—“in our image, after our likeness”—includes physical form. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the “express image” of the Father’s person. If Jesus has a body, why not the Father? We see these as glimpses of truth, not mere symbols.

• Seth creates a false dichotomy where he reasons that if one takes a literal (anthropomorphic interpretation) then passages that say God has wings is literally defining God as having physical wings. 
• There is a difference in poetic language interpretation that is figurative and not literal
• God having winds is poetic expression - utilizing a metaphor
• It is like saying - “If God is spirit” and another says “God is Love” then God is literally Love
• Exodus 33:11 is not figurative as it is literal in that Moses saw God “face to face’
• Acts 7:56 is where Stephen sees in vision the Glory of the Father and Christ at His right hand through the power of the Holy Spirit
• Non-LDS Scholar Stephen H. Webb notes that “Mormons” revived early Christian beliefs in an embodied God - discarding Greek-influenced creeds
• Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection
• Seth recites John 1:14 and appears to imply that Chris is the “only begotten” in the sense of the incarnation - Latter-day Saints actually agree with this
• Seth further claims that this applies to Christ alone and not to the Father
• He attempts to reason this by reinterpreting John 5:19 as being in the context of the miracles he just preformed and not mortality. 
• Seth argues to appeal to context of scripture regarding John 5:19 and only focuses on the verses prior to John 5:19 - not the context of verses that proceed after John 5:19 regarding the two resurrections, judgment, and Christ laying down His life, as he seen the Father do, in order to raise it up again - being the first fruits (cf. John 5:19-47)
• Christ’s very real bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) speaks volumes to the reality of a divine being taken on mortality, living, dying, and then rising up with a resurrected body. 
• Seth, like all critics, attempt to reason from a 3rd century Gnostic and Greek influenced, immaterial God - Far from what the Bible actually describes and reveals
• Biblical Scholars affirm Latter-day Saint belief on God’s ontological nature

Does the Incarnation Prove Only Jesus Has a Body? What of His Resurrection?

Seth argues that Jesus’ incarnation—John 1:14, “The Word became flesh”—applies only to the Son, not the Father, per Trinitarian distinctions. He tackles John 5:19—“The Son does what he sees the Father do”—saying it’s about miracles, not mortality.  

This assumes a begging the question fallacy—presupposing the Trinity to refute our view. In LDS theology, the Godhead isn’t one essence but three beings. “Was God Ever a Man?” explores John 5:19 through the “eternal now principle”—Christ sees the Father’s timeless acts, possibly including a past mortal phase (King Follett Discourse). If Jesus became mortal and resurrected, mirroring the Father’s path isn’t far-fetched.  

John 20:17— “I ascend to my Father and your Father”—and Colossians 1:15— “the image of the invisible God”—suggest a physical connection. The incarnation shows divinity can embrace physicality without losing glory.

• Seth recites John 1:14 and appears to imply that Chris is the “only begotten” in the sense of the incarnation - Latter-day Saints actually agree with this
• Seth further claims that this applies to Christ alone and not to the Father
• He attempts to reason this by reinterpreting John 5:19 as being in the context of the miracles he just preformed and not mortality. 
• Seth argues to appeal to context of scripture regarding John 5:19 and only focuses on the verses prior to John 5:19 - not the context of verses that proceed after John 5:19 regarding the two resurrections, judgment, and Christ laying down His life, as he seen the Father do, in order to raise it up again - being the first fruits (cf. John 5:19-47)
• Christ’s very real bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) speaks volumes to the reality of a divine being taken on mortality, living, dying, and then rising up with a resurrected body. 
• Seth, like all critics, attempt to reason from a 3rd century Gnostic and Greek influenced, immaterial God - Far from what the Bible actually describes and reveals
• Biblical Scholars affirm Latter-day Saint belief on God’s ontological nature

Seth’s arguments are rooted in a spirit-only God shaped by Greek philosophy, as “The Embodiment of God” notes via Petersen. But ancient texts—like the Book of Jubilees or Sumerian myths in “The Nature of God and Creation”—depict a physical deity creating in His likeness. This aligns with Joseph Smith’s First Vision: God and Jesus as tangible beings.  

Our belief isn’t unbiblical—it’s a restoration of early truths. We don’t worship a “different God,” as Seth claims; we see Him as a loving Father, relatable yet infinite. His body doesn’t limit Him—it exalts us, promising resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and eternal growth.

Conclusion: A Call to Reflect

Thanks, Seth, for sparking this convo. Your points are sincere, and I hope our response shows where we agree—and differ—mindfully. To my viewers: What do you think? Does God’s physicality change how you see Him? Drop your thoughts below—I’d love to hear them.  

For more, check out those blog posts linked in the description. Let’s keep seeking truth together, with respect and faith. Until next time, may you feel God’s love—however you envision Him.  

LATTER-DAY SAINT THEOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY ON GOD’S ONTOLOGICAL NATURE IS FIRMLY ROOTED IN BIBLICAL TRUTH

SETH MISSES THE MARK ON LDS COSMOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF GOD

• SETH USES A HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY REGARDING JOHN 4:24 ALONG WITH TYPICAL TRINITARIAN EISEGESIS PROOF TEXTING
• SETH EMPLOYS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT REGARDING HOW GOD CAN’T BE OMNIPRESENT IF HE IS AN EMBODIED EXALTED BEING
• SETH USES A FALSE DILEMMA ARGUMENT REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHERE HE ASSUMES AN EITHER/OR WITHOUT PROPER NUANCE
• SETH USES MORE EISEGESIS INTERPRETATION RATHER THAN EXEGESIS INTERPRETATION REGARDING HOSEA 11:9 AND DEUTERONOMY 4:15-16
• SETH USES A SLIPPER SLOPE FALLACY REGARDING FIGURATIVE AND LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC DESCRIPTORS - POETIC VERSES NON-POETIC
• SETH BEGS THE QUESTION REGARDING THE INCARNATION OF CHRIS WHEN IT COMES TO JOHN 1:14 AND JOHN 5:19
• BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP PROVES THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AS UNBIBLICAL
• HISTORICAL ANALYSIS PROVES THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AS UNBIBLICAL

Does the Bible Teach that God is a Spirit According to John 4:24?

 The Bible teaches that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and spirit alone does not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), but Mormons are taught that God the Father “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

~ Truth In Love Ministries - The Burden of Confusion ~

Evangelicals are deceived by the consistent misinterpretation of Christ's words to the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4:24, according to Evangelical Apologists, is interpreted as an ontological argument regarding the nature of God. They fail to consider the immediate context of Christ's conversation with the woman. Another misappropriation of scripture is hopscotching over to Luke 24:39.

The first article of faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the fundamental Judeo-Christian truth:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

According to Alma 30:44:

... all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Therefore, to understand the teachings of the Restored Gospel, we want to be careful to properly interpret scripture.

The Existence of God

The foundation of Judeo-Christian belief constitutes the knowledge of the attributes and character of a Divine, Sovereign, and Supreme Being. This is central to an intelligent exercise in faith.

James E. Talmage remarked, "There is a filial passion within human nature that flames toward heaven." (Articles of Faith - Chapter 2). Talmage also observes that humanity has a natural propensity toward worshiping:

...his soul is unsatisfied until he finds a deity. When men through transgression fell into darkness concerning the true and living God, they established for themselves other deities, and so arose the abominations of idolatry. And yet, even the most revolting of these practices testify to the existence of a God by demonstrating man's hereditary passion for worship. 

Talmage refers to this as an inborn attribute of mankind that needs demonstration of proof or a question of reasonable logic. The existence of God is proven as evidenced by history and tradition, human reason and intellect, and conclusive evidence through direct revelation (whether ancient or modern).

In Hyrum L. Andrus works - God, Man and the Universe - he remarks on the following observation: "The Father is the ultimate source of all attributes and powers of life, and He is the Supreme Intelligence over all other beings known to man."

Abraham and the Three Angels. James Tissot 1836-1902 the jewishmuseum.org

The Supreme, Sovereign, and Divine Council

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have long held the belief that the Godhead is comprised of three separate and distinct personages. The Father and Son possess resurrected, glorified bodies of flesh and bone. The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit.

Through Jesus Christ, the only begotten of God in the flesh, we worship the Father as the absolute sovereign and supreme being. We accept Jesus Christ as not only the Savior and redeemer of fallen humanity, we recognize him as mediator and the only means by which salvation is given. It is through the power and gift of the Holy Spirit are we able to find comfort, guidance, inspiration, and personal revelation.

The doctrine of a divine council is nothing new. It is a restored revelation based on ancient origins and theophanies recorded throughout ancient cultures of the Hebraic, Sumarian, and Canaanite peoples. Much scholarly work continues to enlighten us on the nature of this divine and supreme council.

Christ and Heavenly Father in the Pre-Existence

Fatherhood of God

When Mary came to the Tomb, she found it to be empty. Afraid, she turned and spoke to whom she thought was the gardener. Instead, the Savior revealed himself to her. Naturally, she wanted to reach out and touch him. The Savior forbade this, saying:

"Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.(See John 20:17, KJV).

This is the only place in scripture where we read how Christ referred to God as not only His father, but the father of the disciples whom followed him. What did he mean by  my father and your father; and my God and your God?  Through modern revelation, we are taught:

“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught:

God is our Father; he is the being in whose image man is created. He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s (D&C 130:22), and he is the literal and personal father of the spirits of all men. He is omnipotent and omniscient; he has all power and all wisdom; and his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, all faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, all truth, and the fullness of all godly attributes. … If we are to have that perfect faith by which we can lay hold upon eternal life, we must believe in God as the possessor of the fullness of all these characteristics and attributes. I say also that he is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (2013), 35–47)

Through these teachings, we see God as a loving Father who cares for our needs and blesses us accordingly. This is quite important for us to understand.

The Nature of God and Creation of Humanity

The first passage we want to address is that of Genesis 1:26-27. I also want to include the passage of Genesis 2:7, 18-24. There is a difference between Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7, 18-24. This is because the accounts seem to be from two different sources. 

According to the Jewish Study Bible, the following comments are observed regarding Genesis 1:26-27: 

The plural construction (Let Us...) most likely reflects a setting in the divine council (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6; Job chs 1-2): God the King announces the proposed course of action to His cabinet of subordinate deities, though He alone retains the power of decision. The midrash manifests considerable uneasiness with God's proposal to create something so capable of evil as human beings are. Playing on Ps. 1:6, one midrash reports that God told his ministering angels only of "the way of the righteous" and hid them "the way of the wicked" (Gen. Rab. 8:4). Another one reports that while the angels were debating the proposal among themselves, God took the matter in hand. "Why are you debating?" He asked them. "Man has already been created!" (Gen. Rab. 8:5). 

The commentary continues with this observation:

...humankind has a different origin and a different character. In the ancient Near East, the king was often said to be the "image" of the god and thus to act with divine authority. So here, the creation of humanity in God's image and likeness carries with it a commission to rule over the animal kingdom (1.26b, 28b; cf. PS. 8:4-9). 

The Jewish commentary of Genesis 1:26-27 appears to show that God created both, male and female, after his own image and likeness. However, let us continue the consideration of what aspect image and likeness humanity was created after.

In an extant, and modern discovery of one of the missing texts of the Old Testament, we have a more condensed version of the Genesis account. Taken from R. H. Charles interpretation of the Ethiopic language of Ge'ez, the Book of Jubiless has this to say: And after all this He created MAN, a man and a woman created He them. This passage does not specify image and likeness as that of Genesis 1:26. However, it does reflect that man and woman were created in a collective sense.

It is not until we get to Jubilees 3 that we gain some interesting insights on the nature of man and woman's creation:

And the Lord said unto us: "It is not good that the man should be alone: let us make a helpmeet for him:" And the Lord our God caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and he slept, and He took for the woman one rib from amongst his ribs, and this rib was the origin of woman from amongst his ribs, and he built up the flesh in its stead, and built the woman. And He awaked Adam out of his sleep and on awaking he rose on the sixth day, and He brought her to him, and he knew her, and said unto her: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; and she will be called my wife [Hebrew ishah] because she was taken from her husband [Hebrew: ish]

Modern Christians may excuse the nature of the Book of Jubilees as not being part of the canonicity of scripture, however, it was well known among first century Christians and very well may have been part of some ancient canon of scripture. It became lost and was only discovered when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

Regardless of one's view on the Book of Jubiless, it does provide some insight that the Book of Genesis does not provide. Namely that it refers to a marriage ceremony by God himself between man and woman. It also provides insight in that woman was created in the same manner as Adam was from the dust of the ground. With one exception, God took a rib from Adam and created woman around that rib.

The creation of man and woman is solely not a Biblical account. Prior to the creation (as rendered in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:4-25), we have a more ancient Sumarian creation story that describes the God Enki and the Goddess Ninhursag-ki dwelt in paradise:

‘Enki and Ninhursag’ is perhaps one of the most difficult Mesopotamian myth for Judeo-Christian Westerners to understand, because it stands as the opposite of the myth of Adam and Eve in Paradise found in the Old Testament Bible. Indeed, ‘ the literature created by the Sumerians left its deep imprint on the Hebrews, and one of the thrilling aspects of reconstructing and translating Sumerian belles-lettres consists in tracing resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical motifs. To be sure, Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they had ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews in the land later known as Palestine’ (Kramer, 1981:142). Some comparisons with the Bible paradise story: 1) the idea of a divine paradise, the garden of gods, is of Sumerian origin, and it was Dilmun, the land of immortals situated in southwestern Persia. It is the same Dilmun that, later, the Babylonians, the Semitic people who conquered the Sumerians, located their home of the immortals. There is a good indication that the Biblical paradise, which is described as a garden planted eastward in Eden, from whose waters flow the four world rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates, may have been originally identical with Dilmun; 2) the watering of Dilmun by Enki and the Sun god Utu with fresh water brought up from the earth is suggestive of the Biblical ‘ But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground’ (Genesis 2:6); 3) the birth of goddesses without pain or travail illuminates the background of the curse against Eve that it shall be her lot to conceive and bear children in sorrow; 4) Enki’s greed to eat the eight sacred plants which gave birth to the Vegetal World resonates the eating of the Forbidden Fruit by Adam and Eve, and 6) most remarkably, this myth provides na explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam. Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, ‘she who makes live’? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is ‘ti’ . To heal each o Enki’s dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib is called ‘Nin-ti’, ‘the lady of the rib’. But the Sumerian word ‘ti’ also means ‘to make live’. The name ‘Nin-ti’ may therefore mean ‘the lady who makes live’ as well as ‘the lady of the rib’. Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ and that for ‘who makes live’ have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, 1981:143-144).

There is scholarship regarding the commonalities and parallels between the Ancient Near Eastern creation stories and that contained with the Bible. All of these creation stories have variant understandings. Despite the variant's of the stories, the point is that all creation stories match up with the understanding that God (or Gods) created man from the dust of the ground in His image and likeness, and then realized Man is not meant to be alone and therefore fashioned woman from man and in the image and likeness. 

The question is, what do we mean by image and likeness? The Bible Study Tools has an excellent article that presents varying degrees of thought concerning the understanding of Image and Likeness regarding man's creation.

In another lost book - the Book of Jasher, we read the same type of account that we find in Genesis 2:4-25, with some slight variations within the text.

And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and God created man in his own image. And God formed man from the ground, and blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul endowed with speech. And the Lord said, it is not good for man to be alone; I will make unto him a helpmeet. And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he took away one of his ribs, and he built flesh upon it, and formed it and brought it to Adam, and Adam awoke from his sleep, and behold a woman was standing before him. And he said, This is bone of my bones and it shall be called woman, for this has been taken from man; and Adam called her name Eve, for she was the mother of all living. And God blessed them and call their names Adam and Eve in the day that he created them.

Again, while the text of Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:4 - 25, and the book of Jubilees and Jasher share the same understanding, both conclude that God created both man and woman. The Hebrew for create is Bara and it means to create, shape, form. This is consistent in reviewing the different variants of the Creation accounts and how men and women were created. In addition, we understand that humanity was fashioned after the image and likeness of God. This is direct correlation to God's physical, spiritual, and characteristic attributes.

Not only were men and women fashioned after God's on divine likeness and image, they were brought together under the divine marriage of God. The Bible does clarify that man and woman were created after God's divine image and likeness.

This brings us to the next point of observation, namely, the understanding of God's ontological nature as revealed in scripture.

However, it will be remiss if we did not move forward into the New Testament to Paul's epistle to the Colassae Church. In there, Paul describes the nature of Creation as being completed by Christ himself. We know Christ existed with the Father as the Gospel of John mentions the term Logos and how this Logos became flesh (cf, John Chapter 1). In that passage, it compliments the doctrinal truth that Christ (Logos) made all things through the Power and authority of God the Father. 

The Apostle Paul writes: 

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell...(Colossians 1:15-19). 

While there is much pertaining to our next observation, what we learn in this passage (and that of the Gospel of Joh) is this:

1) Christ pre-existed and was with the Father before the Creation of the Earth and the creation of Humanity. 
And, 
2) Christ is the active person that has created all things - under the direction and will of the Father.

In fact, what we will see in our next point is that Christ will hand over all that he has to the Father. The most significant point is the use of image of the invisible God. We know that Paul encountered the resurrected Christ. We also know that upon Christ's resurrection, he showed himself unto his disciples. He possessed a body that is resurrected and glorified. This is important to follow because it will set the foundation going into our next main observation regarding the ontological nature of God, the Father.

Since Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones, and that he ascended into heaven with flesh and bones, we conclude that Paul is referring to the nature of Christ's physical image being in that same image and likeness of the Father.

Elsewhere, we see this in relation to our own resurrected bodies: 

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (cf 1 John 3:2)

In our resurrection (which the Biblical text distinguishes two different resurrections) we will come to see Christ in His Image and Glory and that our own resurrected bodies will be in like manner - when Christ appears, we will see him and be like him - resurrected with a body of flesh and bone.  We will possess a resurrected body of flesh and bone as that of Christ has.

Where this is going is that the pre-incarnate Christ, through the direction of the Father, created all things including humanity - men and women by fashioning them after the image and likeness of - God. Christ was only a spiritual being without a body as tangible as man. So, he had to fashion humanities body after the image and likeness of the Father.

The Ontological Nature of God and Biblical Anthropomorphic Descriptors

One of the most common passages modern Christians utilize to prove that God does not have a physical resurrected body of flesh and bones is based on a grossly misinterpretation of John 4:24.

Like many modern Christians and Evangelical Apologists, they make a false interpretation on this one passage. 

There are two main reasons such an interpretation is wrong. The first one is that it is contextually in error; and the second, it is contradictory toward the many passages relating to Christ's ontological and anthropomorphic descriptors in comparison to that of the Father.

Let us address the first main issue with how John 4:24 is contextually misinterpreted. We will do this by appealing to the immediate context of the passage where Christ is at the well and a Samaritan woman comes to draw out water. They engage in a conversation regarding the nature of worship and the idea of salvation being from the Jews. In fact, Christ informs the Samaritan woman:

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His true worshipers. (Cf. John 4:22-23, NASB).

Since the context around John 4:24 refers to the nature of Worship as a Spiritual discipline, there is no means to interpret the understanding from an act of spiritual discipline into an ontological argument. To do so will render the context to refer that those who are "TRUE WORSHIPERS" that the Father (GOD) seeks must also have the same ontological nature as that of God - both being of Spirit. 

Since the context of John 4:22-25 does not refer to the ontological nature of the worshipers, we cannot conclude that verse 24 suddenly refers to God's ontological nature of being Spirit only. The actual rendering that is contextually applicable is that because God seeks true worshipers that will engage in a spiritual discipline renders us to conclude that God is a Spiritual Being. 

Many Bible Commentaries reflect the present mindset that John 4:24 is an ontological descriptor of God being A Spirit and not a Spiritual Being. Take for example Ellicott's commentary for English Readers:

God is Spirit - better, God is spirit. His will has been expressed in the seeking. But his very nature and essence is spirit, and it follows from this that all true worship must be spiritual. 

Benson Commentary says this:

As a further answer to the woman's question, our Lord delivered a doctrine which may justly be called his own, as it exhibits an idea of God, and of the worship which is due to him, far more sublime than the best things said by the philosophers on that subject. Christ came to declare God to us, and this he has declared concerning him, that hi is a Spirit. and he declared it to this poor Samaritan woman

Benson goes further and says this:

God is a spirit, for he is an infinite and eternal mind; an intelligent being, yea, the supreme intelligence, who by one act sees the thoughts of all other intelligence whatever, and so may be worshiped in every place; he is incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and incorruptible: for it is easier to say what he is not than what he is. If God were not a spirit, he could not be perfect, nor infinite, nor eternal, nor independent, nor the Father of spirits. 

Keep the above statement in mind because what will be revealed is that this idea of God being spirit, and therefore being incomprehensible, incorporeal, immaterial, and invisible is a Gnostic heretical teaching from the Second Century. This heretical Gnostic teaching stems from the Valentinius school of thought on the nature of God: 

Valentinians believed that God is incomprehensible and cannot be known directly. Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite, without beginning or end and is the ultimate origin of all things. He encompasses all things without being encompassed. Everything including the world lies within the deity and continues to be part of it. The Godhead manifests itself through a process of self-unfolding in the subsequent multiplicity of being while maintaining its unity.

Notice how this follows the same vein of thought Benson's commentary provides. Yet, this is recited as Biblical doctrine within the construct of the Trinity. The problem here is that if the present understanding of God's nature as being a spirit stems from the second Century heretical teaching of Valentinius, then what is the actual Biblical ontological descriptors concerning the nature and being of God?

Part of that is provided in the previous segment on the nature of humanity and our creation from God's image and likeness. Briefly spoke on the ontological descriptors of Jesus Christ himself. Here, we will explore the relationship between those ontological descriptors as it serves to understand and define Christ's nature (a Physical being who now possesses a Physical and resurrected body).

We first turn ourselves over to the first statement Christ made in relation to himself and the Father: The Apostle (yet still a disciple of Christ) asked the Savior to show unto them (the disciples) the Father. Christ responds that if they have been with Christ so long, how do they not understand that if he (referring to Philip) has seen Christ, then he certainly has seen the Father (cf. John 14:8-9). 

A careful read through the New Testament (specifically the gospels) reveal that Christ always differentiates himself from the Father. He does this when relating to the disciples, and he does this when relating to the religious leaders.

Peter's very own confession reveals that there is a very distinct nature between Christ and the Father: Thou art the Son of the LIVING GOD.

More specific, one unique passage stands out and that is in the resurrection account of the Gospel of John. Here, Christ meets a woman who mistakes  him for the gardener. Christ reveals himself to her and admonishes her not to touch him. His reason for her to not touch him? 

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and  your Father and to my God and your God. (cf John 20:17, KJV)

This is further understood when we look at Christ coming to the upper room where the disciples were present. When the disciple Thomas came in, he wanted to see for himself. On both accounts, Christ refers to the fact that He is not a spirit. That he possesses a body of flesh and bone that was resurrected.

Not only does the New Testament show that Christ had a bodily and physical resurrection, it also relates that he ascended into Heaven and that the Disciples were informed that Christ will return with his resurrected glorified body.

Paul describes in detail the nature of our own resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Revelation describes the resurrection of the Righteous and the Resurrection of those whose names were not written in the Book of Life.

Going back to Colossians, Paul writes that Christ is the First born of the Resurrection.

What we conclude here is that Christ possesses a body of flesh and bone. The Bible explicitly states that Christ rose from the dead with a resurrected body of flesh and bone, and that Christ will appear and we will see him as we are - with a glorified and resurrected body of flesh and bone.

Christ consistently differentiated himself from the Father, yet expressed in ways and terminologies that he also is in the express image of his father (if ye seen me, ye have seen the Father). The New Testament also places Christ in position of authority at the right hand of God's throne.

We also understand and know that when he was challenged, the religious leaders decried blasphemy because Christ either said that he was "I AM" (YHWH) or that he was placing himself Equal to God. When in reality, Biblical teachings and understandings is that Christ is YHWH in the Old Testament and the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.

What modern day scholarship has revealed is that YHWH was a subordinate God to the Most High God and part of the Divine Counsel. This is evident in passages like Deuteronomy 32: 8 - 9, Psalm 82, Job 1 and 2. 

Therefore, the rendering of God being spirit traces its origins back to the heretical teaching of Gnosticism of St. Valentinus where God is incomprehensible, incorporeal, and a Spirit (or essence).