Exaltaion requirements

[James Banta]

Your "gospel" interpretation conflicts with some of the orignal views. For example:

Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.

Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47, in NPNF Series 1, 4:288

...but this is not suprising since your doctrine is founded in the universal apostasy of the early Church. In addition, just because plural marriage was forbidden to bishops and deacons doesn't mean such was not practiced. The possibility that the mystery of marriage, part of the esoteric rites, included plural and spiritual marriages is quite high.

I would expect the true Church in this day an age to have plural marriage as part of it's doctrine according to verses like...

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21

The gospel I believe and teach is found in the scripture not in the commentary of any man. I am not responsible for what was given by any source other than by God the Holy Spirit.. Thank you for trying to stir the pot but it doesn't matter to me if that pot over flows.

As a justification for polygamy you want to show that the patriarchs didn't sin in it's practice.. Ok so what? It wasn't a sin.. Neither was murder or holding false gods.. There was no Law given except for the Law given to each individual man.. Noah was commanded to build and ARK.. Abraham to take Issac and offer him a sacrifice to God.. I am sure other men also we commanded by God to do certain things but the Law had not been given.. Polygamy is against civil laws. It is also denied to the leaders of the Church as I have already shown.. No one can be a Bishop or a Deacon and not be a married man, married to one wife.. That is the Law of God for the Church. I law that leaders of the LDS church from Smith to Woodruff ignored.. LDS leadership were the first men to practice polygamy. It wasn't just something that a few member of the church did here and there. Polygamy became the LAW of the church as was taught that a man must participate in to gain exaltation..

What "universal apostasy of the early Church"? Do you believe Jesus or just offer lip service? He said that He would build His church and even the gates of hell would not stand against her (Matt 16:18).. Did Jesus lie? No where in the scripture is a "universal apostasy" predicted or taught.. Yes there is to be a falling away when the man of sin is revealed but even that will not destroy the whole of the Church.. You are inventing meaning that the word of God does not support..

Have you read the context of Acts 3? The 21st verse is about Jesus and His return.. Read verse 20 along with it and see if it isn't as I said.. If you don't want to do that it will have to be one of those things we will just disagree about.

I feel a lot more resistance in your post than in all the other I have read here. I am sorry to have been so disagreeable but that is the spirit I see in your words.. You have tried to make a reasonable defence.. I just don't see how it works biblically.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Better to ask if God was lying in Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where we see one God giving Jehovah (another God) his portion or Exodus 20:304 where the first two of the ten commandments are redundant unless there is a plurality of Gods. The fact of the matter is that the Isaiah 40-45 set is about Gods created for the Israelites to worship. What about the NT where Paul in Corinthians mentions the existence of other real and divine Gods as well asthe only way mentioned in the scriptures about how other Gods aaare created; Theosis?

That's Jehovah (Jesus Christ). What about his father?

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. John 20:17

It's almost as if the other christians have "exegesis'd" all the critical doctrine out of the Bible.

Do you mean when God chose Jacob to be His chosen people.. You believe that there was another God there and they were dividing up the people of the world to see who would be whose? You take that and ignore the context of the Word to see that Jesus created ALL things and therefore all peoples? This I find to be a shallow and blind statement.. God was choosing Jacob to fulfill the get promise Given in the Garden to Adam. That the serpent would bruise the heal of the Son of man but that He would bruise the head of the serpent.. Jesus had to be born of someone's line. God chose Jacob.. In this same Book of Moses, YHWH is called the God the only God.. Your interpretation is way off..

Jesus claimed to be the I AM.. That is incontestable.. YHWH (I AM) is the only true and living God.. The Father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH.. Three Person one YHWH.. That is the only way I can see to make the whole Bible true.. After all each of these Divine Persons is called YHWH in the Bible yet the Bible says that YHWH is one.. If you have any other way to make the WHOLE of the Bible true please tell me I would be very interested..

You seem to have this LDS idea that God must be one person.. If that were true them Jesus can't be God, Neither can the Holy Spirit.. Yet that is what the Bible says they are? Who is telling the truth here the Bible (Holy Spirit) or Joseph Smith? Guess who I think it is? IHS jim

[James Banta]

Leave him up there all you want but you should know that Christ came down from the cross 2000 years ago. The bottom line is that the LDS Church has THE absolute monopoly on correct Biblical interpretation. It's impossible to criticize the LDS Church's doctrine without attacking the Bible and this is seen in every example you've posted.

Yes I can see this by what you have said... NOT IHS jim

[James Banta]

Are you sure that Paul saw the Father.. I don't know that anyone saw the Father, Not even Stephen but Jesus on the right hand of God. And as Jesus said God is a Spirit.. I don't think you can but please provide a reference for Paul seeing the Father.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

James,

I am excited at the dialogue that has taken place lately. I don't have time to get back to your posts, but I thought I would just express my appreciation for you trying to see what we believe this time around. It is a good thing when this happens.

No problem I enjoy your conversation and company.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

No, you don't. All you have to do is to show what God is and if you want, what you believe Biblical Christianity is, any differences will become obvious if you do a good job of teaching what you believe. You can even use what you believe the LDS faith teaches to emphasize those things that you believe are the most different from our beliefs, but even there no requirement is needed to directly compare....only the True Picture.

That is how I show the differences.. And I have had many a member of the LDS church try to prove that the Lord God is not one Lord again and again.. So there is a major difference.. Mormon prophets have taught that there are billions of Gods in existence and the Bible says that God is not aware that there are any other than Himself.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

God commanded the temple to be built and rebuilt in the past. Why did he not command it when it was destroyed in AD 70?

Do you believe the males of His People should be circumcised? If not, why not?

Do you believe the teachings for His People in the Last Days are different than the teachings for His People at other times? If the same, then why do differences exist such as no animal sacrifice for us, no sacrament for them?

Why did he teach one wife now, but not so for Abraham? (I am assuming he did not teach it because if it was a commandment and Abraham broke it, he wouldn't be called such a faithful and righteous man in the scriptures).

Good question!!! Did you not see that that when Jesus died o the cross that God opened the Holy of Holies up by tearing the veil.e know God did it because it was torn from the top to the bottom.. The eternal sacrifice was made the penalty for sin satisfied.. No longer is a temple required because God would from that time forward live in the hearts of His people.. The children of Jesus are God's Holy Temple (1 Cor 3:16)..

I believe that the Law is till there to be a schoolmaster to us and show us our need for Jesus in our lives.. All the Law even circumcision is still the LAW.. Animal sacrifice was a type or a picture of the real sacrifice for Sin.. No one could be cleanse by the blood of sheep, goats, or cattle.. The real sacrifice these things Always pointed to took place on the Cross.. There is no change in that.. Christian still have a sacrifice and that sacrifice is Jesus.. God never commanded Polygamy to be lived by anyone.. EVER!! Not Abraham not David.. The BofM is right on this point polygamy is an abomination in God's site.. That has never changed either.. He permitted it as part of His permissive will but never did He command such an abomination to be part of the Gospel.. It's it thrilling that Abraham was imperfect before a Holy God and still God called him Him friend and said that because he believed God and that faith was credited to Him as righteousness.. A good thing for us all to remember.. If we but believe God we will be given righteousness. IHS jim

[Doc]

I do not fine the doctrine of 'enduring to the end' in the Bible..

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name

[mercyngrace]

Are you sure that Paul saw the Father.. I don't know that anyone saw the Father, Not even Stephen but Jesus on the right hand of God. And as Jesus said God is a Spirit.. I don't think you can but please provide a reference for Paul seeing the Father.. IHS jim

Not sure if this is directed at me but since I mentioned Paul... I didn't say Paul SAW anything but that TAUGHT of two distinct beings.

Paul taught the Philipians (ch.2) that Christ, being in the form of God, nevertheless did not see it as robbery to be equal with God. How would there be an issue wiith Christ being equal to himself?

He then goes on to explain that God exalted Christ. Acts 2 describes that God exalted Christ after God raised Christ up. Acts 5 similarly declares that God exalted Christ to be a Prince and Savior.

James, How do you define the "glory of God" that Stephen saw? And what space did that glory occupy such that Jesus Christ was positioned to the right of it?

[James Banta]

How sad then that you never understood LDS belief. When you say "LDS doctrine is very changeable" you have not grasped the difference between doctrine and practice. The doctrine is the New and Everlasting Covenant, of which marriage is included. The practice is either plural marriage or monogamy. For a time plural marriage was practiced; now it is not. The doctrine of the New and Everlasting Covenant as it relates to marriage is the same.

A doctrine is a belief of a church. Jesus being God is a doctrine I support. If you don't believe that polygamy was a belief of mormonism then all the data I have about it will never convince you that it is/was.. I will not argue the point. It seems you have a testimony of your this it. All we could hope to do is ram horns. Since we already understand where each of us stands on this issue. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name

[James Banta]

Not sure if this is directed at me but since I mentioned Paul... I didn't say Paul SAW anything but that TAUGHT of two distinct beings.

Paul taught the Philipians (ch.2) that Christ, being in the form of God, nevertheless did not see it as robbery to be equal with God. How would there be an issue wiith Christ being equal to himself?

He then goes on to explain that God exalted Christ. Acts 2 describes that God exalted Christ after God raised Christ up. Acts 5 similarly declares that God exalted Christ to be a Prince and Savior.

James, How do you define the "glory of God" that Stephen saw? And what space did that glory occupy such that Jesus Christ was positioned to the right of it?

Paul taught the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.. He never said they were Persons or Beings.. It is said that Stephen Saw Jesus Standing on God's right hand side.. It is also said that God is a Spirit.. Now I can stand on the right hand side of my house, of the car, of a chair in my livingroom.. This doesn't mean any of those things have hands. Jesus said there is a difference between a Spirit and a tangible body:

Luke 24:39

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So why if God has a body as tangible as man's would Jesus say that God is a Spirit (John 4:24)It doesn't make sense if Jesus said the passage I quoted in Luke 24..

You still have the LDS idea of what the Trinity is.. God is not one Person but three.. God is not one Person but three.. HOWEVER God is one eternal Being and each of the Persons of God are the same essense, the same substance, the same God..

When you said "Paul saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two distinct beings... pretty tough to accuse Paul of being unbiblical." I though you meant on the road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him.. If you look at it from that stand point I am sure you understood what I was thinking.. IHS jim

[Chaos]

James Banta, read the posting rules before you post again. Do not use our board to "witness".

[James Banta]

James Banta, read the posting rules before you post again. Do not use our board to "witness".

You can ban me it is your right and I will leave.. But if a member of your board asks me how something like the trinity can be I will tell them.. That is not witnessing as much as it is just answering a question.. I don't mean to be a rule breaker but I have the responsibilities to answer question.. That is a Biblical responsibility..

1 Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

Answering a question asked by another member of this board is witnessing? That is a very fine line.. I am sorry if you believe I have crossed it.. I really don't know how to discuss points of doctrine without telling the others what I believe to be the truth.. Such methods are not unusual on other posting boards.. For either side of a conversation. But this is your board maybe I don't fit. I came here for information.. I have it... If you ask I will leave and you can cancel my membership.. I personally believe that yje LDS membership will be weaker if I am not here to challenge them.. But I Have a duty to obey God and not man.. You are a just a man... IHS jim

[mercyngrace]

Paul taught the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.. He never said they were Persons or Beings.. It is said that Stephen Saw Jesus Standing on God's right hand side.. It is also said that God is a Spirit.. Now I can stand on the right hand side of my house, of the car, of a chair in my livingroom.. This doesn't mean any of those things have hands. Jesus said there is a difference between a Spirit and a tangible body:

Luke 24:39

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So why if God has a body as tangible as man's would Jesus say that God is a Spirit (John 4:24)It doesn't make sense if Jesus said the passage I quoted in Luke 24..

You still have the LDS idea of what the Trinity is.. God is not one Person but three.. God is not one Person but three.. HOWEVER God is one eternal Being and each of the Persons of God are the same essense, the same substance, the same God.. IHS jim

Yes - I am LDS. I do have the "LDS idea of what the Trinity is". The fact that a Spirit is not flesh and bones doesn't mean it has no body. It simply means that the composition of that body is different. Christ didn't say the spirit has no hands.

Let's apply your logic to known items:

A car is made of metal, leather, and electronics. It runs on gas, oil, water.

A 3 year old's big wheel is composed of molded plastic.

Therefore, a big wheel has no wheels.

When Christ apppeared to the Brother of Jared, He appeared as a spirit that resembled His human form. His composition was different, a fact He ackowledged when the BoJ mistakenly thought Christ's finger was 'flesh and bone'.

[James Banta]

Yes - I am LDS. I do have the "LDS idea of what the Trinity is". The fact that a Spirit is not flesh and bones doesn't mean it has no body. It simply means that the composition of that body is different. Christ didn't say the spirit has no hands.

Let's apply your logic to known items:

A car is made of metal, leather, and electronics. It runs on gas, oil, water.

A 3 year old's big wheel is composed of molded plastic.

Therefore, a big wheel has no wheels.

When Christ apppeared to the Brother of Jared, He appeared as a spirit that resembled His human form. His composition was different, a fact He ackowledged when the BoJ mistakenly thought Christ's finger was 'flesh and bone'.

I have a question for you.. Since Jesus is speaking here in His resurrection body, is it different than the body you believe the Father has?

Is God a Spirit as Jesus said He is?

Sorry I don't believe any Person of God appeared to any such person as the Brother of Jared.. I don't believe that any such person ever existed.. This touching of stones never happened.. IHS jim

[Jason]

[name=Jason' date='31 October 2009 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1257014571' post='1208744840]

So James, you have said that you know that commandments to build an ark, sacrifice one's son etc. in the Bible are given to specific people and need not be fulfilled by everyone. How do you tell when the Bible is speaking to the people of that day as opposed to everyone. The "bishops shall have one wife" idea, for instance - how do you tell if that is a commandment to everyone or just to that people at that time?

Come on Jason.. The commandments to Noah, and Abraham were given to then personally as a one time thing..God said "NOAH you do this" and "Abraham you do that"

So when Paul says "Timothy, a bishop should have one wife," it kind of begs the question of whether this is supposed to apply to everyone everywhere, doesn't it?

[mercyngrace]

I have a question for you.. Since Jesus is speaking here in His resurrection body, is it different than the body you believe the Father has?

Is God a Spirit as Jesus said He is?

Sorry I don't believe any Person of God appeared to any such person as the Brother of Jared.. I don't believe that any such person ever existed.. This touching of stones never happened.. IHS jim

God can accurately be described as spirit and element combined. Notice I did not say spirit and flesh and bone.

James, what you believe about the Brother of Jared is irrelevant unless it somehow impacts your understanding of the nature and character of God - the topic we're discussing. I was expressing my opinion so the basis of my belief is relevant to my comment. This might be why you get accused of "witnessing".

[James Banta]

So when Paul says "Timothy, a bishop should have one wife," it kind of begs the question of whether this is supposed to apply to everyone everywhere, doesn't it?

No not everyone, just Christians.. Paul was giving Timothy instructions on who should be in Church leadership.. This teaching is only for the Church that Jesus adds to daily those who are being saved, not for churches that require the authority of a man to join. This is not the way any nonchristian church needs to be set up.. All such churches can be organized however they want.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

God can accurately be described as spirit and element combined. Notice I did not say spirit and flesh and bone.

James, what you believe about the Brother of Jared is irrelevant unless it somehow impacts your understanding of the nature and character of God - the topic we're discussing. I was expressing my opinion so the basis of my belief is relevant to my comment. This might be why you get accused of "witnessing".

I don't understand what you are saying in this post.. I showed Jesus definition of a spirit.. I showed that He said that God is a Spirit.. God therefore doesn't have flesh and bone as Jesus showed He has.. So when God appeared beside Jesus at the stoning of Stephen Jesus stood at the right hand of a Spirit.. IHS jim

[mercyngrace]

You know what, James, I was getting caught up in the semantics and my own thoughts and wasn't responding carefully enough.

Let me see if I can express myself more clearly this time.

Your description of LDS theology is simplistic and doesn't encompass all of the ideas as they conjoin to form a complete view of the concept. Yes, there are LDS scriptures that describe God as having a body of flesh and bone, even the Bible quotes God as saying that man is created in His image. LDS know however, that God's body is clearly different than man's. His body is incorruptible, immortal, and eternal. It is not the same kind of degradable flesh that we have and LDS know this. That doesn't mean He has no form or body - it doesn't mean that His body looks vastly different from ours -it means that the composition of His body is different. So is He spirit? Yes. Does He have a body? Yes. Is that body tangible? Yes. Is it flesh and bone? Of a fashion, yes.

Let's look at what you consider Christ's definition.

First, it isn't a definition. It doesn't define spirit. It defines what spirit isn't. It says a spirit isn't flesh and bone. Okay. No disagreement here. Spirit is not a tabernacle of mortal clay.

Secondly, let's look at the context. Christ was calming his frightened disciples by assuring them that He was not a disembodied spirit - a ghost or something along those lines. We can be sure this was His intent as once before, as He approached the same men, walking upon the water, the scriptures use the same word, "spirit". The disciples were "troubled" presuming the Lord was "a spirit" and He comforted them "Be not afraid." Jesus Christ was saying to His followers, fear not, I am no ghost - no soulless body - I am the Resurrection and the Life! In this context, "spirit" means something entirely different than in John 4. Certainly, in John, Christ didn't mean to say "God is a ghost."

So, third, let's look at the concept that God is a spirit. Is God a spirit? Yes. A spirit joined with eternal elements - in a body that was used as a pattern for our current temporary spiritual habitats ;-) LDS scriptures teach that "man is a spirit" - does that preclude his also having a body of flesh and bone? No. It means that we are not ONLY flesh and bone.

[James Banta]

You know what, James, I was getting caught up in the semantics and my own thoughts and wasn't responding carefully enough.

Let me see if I can express myself more clearly this time.

Your description of LDS theology is simplistic and doesn't encompass all of the ideas as they conjoin to form a complete view of the concept. Yes, there are LDS scriptures that describe God as having a body of flesh and bone, even the Bible quotes God as saying that man is created in His image. LDS know however, that God's body is clearly different than man's. His body is incorruptible, immortal, and eternal. It is not the same kind of degradable flesh that we have and LDS know this. That doesn't mean He has no form or body - it doesn't mean that His body looks vastly different from ours -it means that the composition of His body is different. So is He spirit? Yes. Does He have a body? Yes. Is that body tangible? Yes. Is it flesh and bone? Of a fashion, yes.

Let's look at what you consider Christ's definition.

First, it isn't a definition. It doesn't define spirit. It defines what spirit isn't. It says a spirit isn't flesh and bone. Okay. No disagreement here. Spirit is not a tabernacle of mortal clay.

Secondly, let's look at the context. Christ was calming his frightened disciples by assuring them that He was not a disembodied spirit - a ghost or something along those lines. We can be sure this was His intent as once before, as He approached the same men, walking upon the water, the scriptures use the same word, "spirit". The disciples were "troubled" presuming the Lord was "a spirit" and He comforted them "Be not afraid." Jesus Christ was saying to His followers, fear not, I am no ghost - no soulless body - I am the Resurrection and the Life! In this context, "spirit" means something entirely different than in John 4. Certainly, in John, Christ didn't mean to say "God is a ghost."

So, third, let's look at the concept that God is a spirit. Is God a spirit? Yes. A spirit joined with eternal elements - in a body that was used as a pattern for our current temporary spiritual habitats ;-) LDS scriptures teach that "man is a spirit" - does that preclude his also having a body of flesh and bone? No. It means that we are not ONLY flesh and bone.

This is a doctrine of your own making and that is fine, you can believe anything you wish but understand that there is one Greek word used in both these passages.. That word in "Numa" it means wind, or spirit, but a spirit had no different meaning to these people than what we call a ghost today..

Is God just wind? Then He is what these men believed to be a Spirit what you want to call a ghost. A Numa has no flesh and bone, as the disciples could see Jesus did. The context is clear. "A Spirit (Numa) has not flesh and bone as you see I have". Wasn't this His resurrection body? Isn't it the same kind of body you tell me that the Father has? Yet Jesus said His had flesh and bone and you are telling me that the Father's does not?

According to the offical version of the First vision Jesus and the Father have the same kind of body. Did Jesus get another one after His assension? Your point is lost in the complexity of LDS doctrines about the nature of God.. You have added a lot of interputation to the verse to get it to say what you want it to say, while I on the other hand have just taken it and believed what Jesus said in this passage.. IHS jim

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't understand what you are saying in this post.. I showed Jesus definition of a spirit.. I showed that He said that God is a Spirit.. God therefore doesn't have flesh and bone as Jesus showed He has.. So when God appeared beside Jesus at the stoning of Stephen Jesus stood at the right hand of a Spirit.. IHS jim

If Jesus is "God" then "God" has a body of flesh and bone, or would that mean that God has 2/3's Spirit and 1/3 body. It is easy to see why the (Christian) "Trinitarian" view of God does not hold water. (as a body would).

[mercyngrace]

This is a doctrine of your own making and that is fine, you can believe anything you wish but understand that there is one Greek word used in both these passages.. That word in "Numa" it means wind, or spirit, but a spirit had no different meaning to these people than what we call a ghost today..

I don't argue that. I've never heard any interpretation of those like the one I posited last night. I just thought it was curious that on two occasions, he calmed these frightened men by saying He wasn't a spirit - something that clearly scared them. And then when describing God the Father, a being to be revered, He says God is a spirit. Seems incongruous to me - but that was my own interpretation - not anything doctrinal to the LDS church. I think you're trying to hang doctrine on words without context.

Is God just wind? Then He is what these men believed to be a Spirit what you want to call a ghost. A Numa has no flesh and bone, as the disciples could see Jesus did. The context is clear. "A Spirit (Numa) has not flesh and bone as you see I have". Wasn't this His resurrection body? Isn't it the same kind of body you tell me that the Father has? Yet Jesus said His had flesh and bone and you are telling me that the Father's does not?

Okay - so you are saying God the Father is a spirit but Christ is a resurrected being? James, Christ can appear with a resurrected body that is not glorified. He appeared in a mortal body every day of his life without people recognizing Him as God incarnate but then appeared radically different to Peter, James and John on the Mt. of Transfiguration. I don't believe (but this again is conjecture) that God the Father can appear outside His tangible glorified body but the Bible testifies that Christ clearly can. We know He appeared in numerous forms:

As a physical mortal

Transfigured on the mount

In the garden when He said "touch me not for I have not yet ascended"

To the disciples when He said a spirit hath not flesh and bone - in which account there is not mention of Him shining brighter than the sun per Matt 17

On the road to Emmaus when again He went unrecognized

According to the offical version of the First vision Jesus and the Father have the same kind of body. Did Jesus get another one after His assension? Your point is lost in the complexity of LDS doctrines about the nature of God.. You have added a lot of interputation to the verse to get it to say what you want it to say, while I on the other hand have just taken it and believed what Jesus said in this passage.. IHS jim

The Bible contradicts itself, James, and is wide open to interpretation otherwise Christianity would be unified. Some truths are esoteric and are only discovered by reading all the teachings in concert.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have a question for you.. Since Jesus is speaking here in His resurrection body, is it different than the body you believe the Father has?

Is God a Spirit as Jesus said He is?

Yes, that Father has this same body. Saying that God is spirit is not the same as saying that God does not have a pysical body. If you can find such a verse I will believe you.