Featured Not Scripturally supported?

None of what you posted showed in any manner that the Father withdrew from the Son in the sense of abandonment, or even broken fellowship.

Any parent who has had a child involved in sports or fine arts activities can understand the relationship of the Father at the crucifixion.

There is no suggestion in the Scriptures as to God allowing His Son to be brutalized without his direct involvement, purpose, and attention. God at no time turned away from the Son, but did withdraw protection. As a Son, Christ was often protected from the crowd and nourished by the angels. Yet, such protection and nourishment were withdrawn, and the Son remarked about such on the Cross.

That the Father withheld support, is just as a father who sees their child wounded on the field of play and does not rush onto the field to defend the son, but allows for the course of events to continue, yet ever watchful, so the Father did not enter the field of play to nourish and defend but withheld such support.

Hence why in the Revelation the crucifixion is shown as a victorious event, of great jubilation and deep devotion by all in heaven towards the Son. Taking the scroll from the Father, thereby showing the transfer of all authority in judgment and redemption into the hands of the Son, displayed that of conquering, authority, honor, purity, and right. Only the lamb, the pure, undefiled and unspotted lamb, that slain lamb could take from the Father that scroll. No sin was born to the Father with the expectancy to take the Scroll. Only the Son would oblige such a transfer.

It really is not difficult, yet so very many in their exuberance carry the emotionalism far beyond the victory shown in the presentation of the Scriptures.

I want you to remember, The Father had and has "communion," (that is a working relationship) as a ruler has over all subjects despite the disposition, status, station, or condition of the subject. Therefore, the Father does most certainly, as the Scriptures abundantly display, is not offended by using and seeing the most sinful interacting with the most sinful. And the Son was NEVER sinful. He bore our sins, he took on (became) the sin as one would take upon themselves the responsibility for another's actions, but He was never sinful.

The Father did NOT withdraw from the participation because the Son took the sin of the world as His own responsibility.

Why would He? To suggest that it was because the Son became sin, disputes the character displayed by God throughout the Scriptures. If God did not separate Himself from any other sinner (from Adam to the final judgment), why would He be obliged to be separate from the Son whom He sent to bear the very burden and completing the mission for which the Father had commissioned and who never was sinful?

Did not God have communion with sinners of the OT? Did not Christ have communion with sinners in the NT?

I could never make a student understand what they had no desire to learn.

Yet, I am convinced better of you, and know that, as you seek wisdom in this, you will see the consistency with Scriptures and conform to them.