Did God the Father die on the cross?

Thank you, thank you readers.

This is a topic where words are going to be extremely important.  Scripture says by your words you are justified and by your words you are condemned.

The meaning behind the words have to be understood. Scripture say of all they getting get understanding.

So Did God the Father die on the cross?

Scripture says by your words you are justified and out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established.

First witness from first Timothy 3:16 and it's funny we're having controversy over this but a mystery is given , was given to those who walked with the Lordddddd Jesus.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh"

Now what do we have here ? God manifest in flesh and flesh in manifest was God.

What flesh?

Let's read on in verse 16:

"justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory"

This is all speaking about the flesh of that body prepared, body of the Son, flesh and blood,body of flesh and bone, that a sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not.

This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God. The manifestation, the flesh, the manifestation in flesh was put to an end.

That brings me to my second witness.

Still in the first epistle, that is the book of Peter 3.

"18 For Christ also suffered[a] for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit."

We just learned what the flesh manifested. The manifestation of God who is/was/is the Father as the scriptures say, there is one God the Father (was put to death). 

Those are your two witnesses.

But we'll give a third .

John 10 and starting at 30.

"30 I and my Father are one."

There's the Father. Best believe he's in the picture. This is what Jesus is saying to them. These works (manifested in that flesh) are from the Father.

Works of the Father.

"33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Is Jesus God? Did Jesus die on the cross?

Little did they know the works of the Father in him they were putting to an end.

Now we can get into it. That didn't take as much as I thought.

I'll yield and the opposing side can ask questions. Scripture  says " Ask, and it shall be given you" . Scriptures say " be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh".

My peace be still.

I’m guessing based on your arguments you don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God? Either that, or you believe Jesus was the Father? 

Let’s look at your verses first, as well as provide my own scripture. 

Timothy 3:16:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was made manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 

Obviously the mystery Paul is referring to is the strangeness of God somehow being human and rising again, while still being God. According to the bible, this is solved because of the Trinity. Jesus is God, so it can still be said God was human. How was this physically possible? I guess that’s the mystery part of it.

It’s strange how in your argument about the flesh, you wrote that it is “speaking about the flesh of that body prepared, body of the Son.” So if the flesh Paul was writing about was the body of the Son, wouldn’t that mean God manifested in the Son, not Father? Or are you saying God the Father was literally in Jesus? Even if that’s what the verse is saying, did the Father die along with Jesus? Cuz even if that was the case, it’s still Jesus the human (which is flesh) that’s dead, not God the Father. Whether or not you believe in Jesus being the Son, this would be true. 

You have also said the manifestation in the flesh was put to an end. So God the Father was put to an end? Because if only the flesh died, that would be Jesus. You would have to say Jesus is God the Father, being the manifestation, to die.

Let’s cross examine your second witness, 1 Peter 3:18. 

“For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.”

The scriptures say there is one God because the three persons are one. There is also one God the Father, not three God the Fathers, that is true. That doesn’t mean God the Father came down either as Jesus or in Jesus. The other two parts of the Trinity are the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

The verse clearly said Christ was the one suffering, the one that is leading to God, and the one put to death, and the one brought to life again. In order for this to be God the Father, you would have to say Christ is God the Father, but Christ means Chosen One, basically Messiah and Savior. Did God the Father choose Himself? 

Christ in this verse is clearly trying to lead people to God (the Father, as the Son). Therefore, the term Christ and God (the Father) are referring to different people. Someone is trying to lead people to someone else. If Christ is the Father, it would be strange if they were to use two different names for the same person in the same sentence. 

John 10:30, have a seat. 

“ I and my Father are one.”

If you read the verses before and after it, you would know that Jesus wasn’t “borrowing” the Father’s power. It was GIVEN to Him, for Him to keep. Jesus has His own power. 

And besides, no context aside, saying that this sentence suggests Jesus is the Father or the Father is somehow in Jesus makes no sense. “I and my Father” suggest that whoever “I” is, they’re not the Father. 

Otherwise, that’s like Jesus saying, “Me and I are me.” 

As for that kjv verse, I have already argued against that above. God GAVE Him that power, God isn’t possessing Jesus and generating that power from within Him. Jesus Himself is God, God the SON specifically. 

Which answers your next question, YES. Jesus IS God. But not God the FATHER. To say God the Father died on the cross is stranger than simply saying Jesus lied about being God. God the Father, the Creator of all things, died? Isn’t He from everlasting to everlasting, as so many Psalms praised Him for being?

Why not His Son, who, although is God, is still under the Father’s authority? Why not send Him to do that instead? Can’t God the Father order His Son around?

Argument for Verses 34 to 38. 

That wasn’t Jesus telling people He isn’t God. He literally just suggested He is equal to God. The reaction of the Jews proves this. God is only equal to God Himself, unless if you can give me a counterexample. 

Verses 36 and 37 is Jesus basically saying, if Asaph is calling humans gods in psalm 82:6 (basically a part of the Jewish religious book), then what’s wrong with Jesus suggesting He is a God if the Jewish book also calls humans gods? It was a challenge to the Jews and also Him defending what he suggested. 

And yeah, they didn’t realize they were going to kill the one sent from God. 

Additional questions also, because some of your assertions and overall position aren’t making sense to me.

Based on your asking “Did Jesus die on the cross?” I’m guessing you don’t think He did? What human form did God the Father take when He died? If Jesus isn’t the Son, then who? 

If God the Father was the one who died on the cross, he was seen, right? Why then was this said in Scripture?

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known.”

John 1:18

Your debate topic is: “God the Father died on the cross.”

So you acknowledge God came down to Earth and was human. How did God come down to Earth and still remain in Heaven to give Jesus this “power” if God the Father is the one that’s supposed to die? And who rose the Father from the dead if Jesus isn’t God? 

And what about all four Gospels who recorded an account of Jesus dying on the cross? 

Here are the accounts: 

John 19

Luke 23

Mark 15

Matthew 27

They didn’t say it was God the Father. 

Summary of argument: If God the Father died on the cross, then is He in Jesus or is Jesus the Father? Either possibility isn’t a possibility. There are also accounts that clearly document Jesus being the one dying. And the verses you used actually support Jesus being God, and thus, being the one that died on the cross. 

"So Did God the Father die on the cross?"

Him and the Father are one. If you read throughout the gospels it's about Jesus manifesting his Father's name, showing you works of the Father, believing the works of the Father so that they believe on the Father. The bible teaches Jesus said what about to quote is because people denied in scripture also, not just in debates like these but in the scripture, denied Him, so Jesus said "but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works".

Scripture teach you deny him you deny the Father.

So Christ is the Father in flesh doing the works.

Scripture say in 2 Corinthians 5 "to wit God was in Christ".

Now we know there is one God the Father according to 1 Corinthians 8.

God is the Father. Not sometimes, not part time, not here and there but he changes not. God, the one God which is spirit, one spirit, there is one spirit of God the Father.

That body was given power because it had the holy Spirit. I believe we learn in Acts 1 , you have the spirit you receive power.

This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God. The manifestation, the flesh, the manifestation in flesh was put to an end.

This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God. The manifestation, the flesh, the manifestation in flesh was put to an end.

There you go. Three times. Now do you believe the scripture teach The Works Of The Father Was Manifest In Flesh?

I think this is the one question that will have you concede and end the debate .

Was the works of Father God made manifest in flesh?

Jesus doesn't have to say he is God. The mystery reveals it. Great is the mystery of Godliness. When Jesus said before Abraham was , I am, you know the mystery in what he's saying. 

What about them? You do know my position never states Jesus didn't die on the cross .

You have said that Jesus said if you see Him you see the Father. 

He isnt saying He is the Father. He’s saying He’s God. 

Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, I don’t deny that. What I am denying is that Jesus is an incarnation of God the Father. Jesus Himself is God, the Son. Not the same as God the Father. 

He actually appears to be referring to Himself to be “Son” when asked when the end times are coming, because He said the Son doesn’t know, and He didn’t give an answer so the “Son” can be assumed to be Jesus. (Mark 13:32)

So because of your answer to all my questions, you believe Jesus is God incarnate, that is, God the Father taking human form, instead of Jesus being both God the Son and human at the same time. That’s why He seemed to know God the Father is His true Father in the temple in Luke, and yet still had to grow in stature and wisdom. If God the Father was merely inhabiting a body, then why did He have to grow in wisdom? 

Verse 6 of Philippians 2 doesn’t make sense unless if you read the verse before: 

2 Philippians 5-6: 

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God (I thought God is in the form of Jesus, not the other way around), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” 

So this Jesus, who is supposed to only be God’s human form, took on human form. 

And since Jesus is the person talked about in this passage, it isn’t saying God in the form of God took on human form. Jesus, the human form, emptied Himself, as though He forgot He was God by humbling Himself to such a great extent. That’s why the verse says Jesus “ignored” his equality with God. It’s not saying He isn’t equal to Him as God. God is equal to Himself, obviously the roles He puts Himself wont be equal in authoritative power, but theyre of the same value. 

And you said that the pharisses “got the message” that meant Jesus was a mere man, and yet, you said, and I quote: 

“So Jesus is God who died on the cross. 

Well he died so Jesus was God who died on the cross. 

Amen.” 

So did they really get the message that Jesus who equaled HImself with God when He was really a man? 

You have also said, and I quote: 

“This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God.” 

While quoting James 2:26: 

“As the body without the spirit is dead.” 

That verse is referring to someone on a spiritual journey. If they dont have a fruitful spirit, which can also mean the holy spirit, then that person may as well be dead spiritually. The verse wasnt about a literal body. Here are the verses before it:

James 2:24-26 NIV

[24] You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. [25] In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? [26] As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

https://bible.com/bible/111/jas.2.24-26.NIV

You have also dismissed my argument for the Trinity completely. 

If the trinity exists, that would be why Jesus isn’t God the Father, but God the Son. You’re gonna need to prove it’s false so that there wouldn’t such thing as even a God the Son in the first place. 

You have given me one question that you want me to answer first. I will. 

Your question is 

“Was the works of the Father God made manifest in the flesh?” 

Yes, because Jesus did the works of God. Pretty sure “made manifest” in this verse is supposed to be the equivalent of “demonstrated” in this case. 

The question is, do you believe if someone’s works died, that person died? 

You have countered my argument that God is only equal to God with this: 

“Who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God.” 

So you dont believe God is of equal worth to Himself?

 If there is only one spirit and the only form of God is God the Father, how then could one form not be equal to the same form? 

God the Father isn’t equal to God the Father? Why did you even contradict me saying God is equal to Himself when you believe in a God the Father but not the Trinity?

Also, the verse isnt saying God isnt equal to God. Its saying this equality, which EXISTED, wasnt considered. He didnt THINK about it, that doesnt mean it’s there.

Didn’t you say earlier Jesus is but a mere man presenting Himself as God? He isn’t God so what equality with God is there to consider, or not consider? 

The only way to explain this verse is that there is another distinct person of God (form wouldn’t be the correct word, sorry if I used it previously) that could also be equal to God, cuz that’s still God. 

You have said Jesus isn’t a liar when He said “you see me you see the Father.” 

But you would also be saying He’s a liar because He said no one saw God the Father. If seeing Jesus is seeing God, He lied. Because there were people that saw Him. 

God isn’t everywhere. That sounds like a pagan belief I remember reading about somewhere. Or was that wicca?

God can SEE everywhere, not BE everywhere. 

God filling Heaven and Earth appears to be based on this verse, which says: 

“Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?” declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? Declares the Lord. 

The first question clarifies the second. He can see everywhere, without having to be everywhere. 

There are REMINDERS of Him everywhere however, that’s not the same thing as God the Father actually being everywhere. 

I suppose if you’re feeling sentimental you can say that. 

You have made the claim the Father rose the Father, basically you are saying He rose Himself. Youre def gonna need to explain that one. What consitutes as dead, exactly?

And if Jesus is merely a human form that God takes on, why the need to resurrect a human form? There isnt a human soul to resurrect and give the body back to, it was God in that body. Why raise it up again?

You have also said, and I quote: 

“Jesus said, you see Him you see the Father. So they were looking at the Father that was on the cross. 

Boom.” 

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the father’s side, He has made Him known.” 

John 1:18 

Jesus isnt supposed to lie. 

The reason for why Jesus did say seeing Him is seeing the Father is because He’s trying to say He’s God the Son. He’s trying to tell people in a complex way (which is typical of Him) that He and the Father are one, but since He has referred to Himself as “Son” (see the verse about the end times), therefore He’s trying to say they’re two (well, three, if you include holy spirit), but one. If He was the Father, and yet said only God the Father knows when the end times are, He wouldve just answered that question.

Since you dont believe in a God the Son but that God the Father was in Jesus, you’ll have to clear up the contradiction without the Trinity, since it appears you dont believe its true. 

Otherwise, Jesus is lying. And if Jesus is God the Father or God the Father is in Him, 

God the Father lied.

If you cannot clear up the contradiction, then how could Jesus be God the Father? Or how could God the Father be in Jesus?

If what you say is true:

God the Father either lied, or Jesus was a mere man who lied that He was God.

But if Jesus lied, then He isnt God, and so God the Father wouldnt have died, only a human did.

And if God the Father lied, you’ll have to explain that one. 

That contradicts Him being consistent and not breaking promises and covenants. 

That contradicts Him being a good God, unless if you believe He’s a bad one.

You got some explaining, bring it on.

P.S: I forgot one thing:

You said: Yes the manifestation died because when that flesh died there was no more manifestation.

So JESUS, the FLESH, died. And so because of that God wasnt Him in anymore.

Thats why I said either way, it’s Jesus the human that died, not God.

Your debate topic is God the Father, the actual deity, dying on the cross, not His stay in Jesus ending when Jesus died. Unless if you think God is somehow a spirit that needs a human to latch on and dies if that human is gone. If thats the case the Father wouldnt raise Himself as you claimed, because there is no body.

Even if God wasnt manifested in Jesus anymore, its God and His demonstrating Himself that was stopped, not the deity. 

You repeated this three times, so I’ll copy one of them here and answer it, because that seems to be a main point.

This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God. The manifestation, the flesh, the manifestation in flesh was put to an end.

So Jesus didnt have the spirit of God then? 

If Jesus is God who died on the cross, as you have affirmed with your “amen”, then why doesnt He have the spirit of God? 

And by the emphasis on manifestation, I guess you think Jesus is demonstrating God, but doesnt have the spirit of God? 

Then how is He God the Father?

I know I have asked a lot of questions, so i will summarize what Im trying to argue.

I dont believe in Jesus being God the Father because I believe in a Trinity that states God as triune, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

And Jesus is God taking role of Son, not Father. This doesnt mean Jesus isnt God, I dont believe in that. Jesus is God, perhaps I made it seem Im arguing otherwise.

So yes, it is important you disprove the trinity. It’s relevant to this debate. If it is disproven, I have no case.

I’m willing to provide verses for the trinity. As well as explaining it, its not easy to understand.

And I contend not only because of the trinity, but also because you are using some verses incorrectly, taking some out of context, as well as using different translation. And I dont mean niv and esv. I mean modern translations with kjv and older translations. Those two are completely different. It seems to me you are using kjv whenever convenient. That isnt an honest way to use the bible.

You also ignored a key point in my argument, that Jesus might be lying. You have done this in the other debate, where you ignore my main point, which is founded on seven words of a verse I used. And instead of addressing those words, you ignored them and then argued as though Im saying Jesus allows all divorce.

I mention this because if you’re gonna argue for a controversial take on God (even the Muslims disagree with you), it needs to supported well. You not supporting it well is why I was asking so many questions. If you had answered them, it wasnt clear enough. You also appear to simply reiterate what you said when I asked questions. You need to explain what you're reiterating. You saying "it's all of the above" isnt helpful. Some ideas I mentioned in round 1 contradict each other.

You gonna need to break it down.

You are also relying on single verses for entire arguments.

I hope I have argued against your misuse of them well enough. 

If your argument was well supported, I may have actually conceded. Since it looks like you’re misusing the bible, thats another reason why i contend. 

The final reason is that you saying God the Father was in Jesus is basically you saying Jesus is God. Thats why “God” is in Him. 

You have dismissed the trinity saying thats off topic, so make it clear, do you mean to argue in this debate that Jesus is God? 

And if you’re still arguing that God the Father was in Jesus, or that Jesus is God the Father, the trinity is very relevant. You’ll need to address that. My most important point is that God isnt only the Father, and specifically Jesus is the Son, who is still God.

And also:

So they were looking at the Father that was on the cross. He gave up the ghost , and that was the end of the son(manifestation).

Remember this?

So God manifested in the Son, you have said the Son is the manifestation. 

That makes sense on its own, but with this?

This is the manifestation of godliness, manifestation of God. Not the Spirit of God. The manifestation, the flesh, the manifestation in flesh was put to an end.

The manifestation, which was the Son:

So they were looking at the Father that was on the cross. He gave up the ghost , and that was the end of the son(manifestation).

Was put to an end. The Son was put to an end.

This is what these points, which were yours, are suggesting.

I would rather we argue on whether or not the trinity is valid, not on whether or not Jesus is God, because we both agree on that. The difference is whether or not Jesus was God the Father or God the Son. 

Again, the trinity is relevant here. 

You need to disprove it, not argue that Jesus is God. 

My main argument was about that as well, on top of giving context to the verses you misused. I seem to only be arguing agaisnt your argument and you arguing against me arguing. 

Why dont you argue against my main point? This would be very one sided if you dont. 

I have mentioned again and again that Jesus is God but the Son, which explains all those verses as well as being my main point of contention. 

If you don't have the mystery of godliness, it won't make sense. Great is the mystery of godliness the scripture says 

The point is Jesus is God. Jesus said his father was in him so his being consisted of the father in flesh. He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me".

Yes they got the message that this is a mere man claim to be God in John 10. This is why they killed him. They rejected he was the son of God like he said. Then the centurion said truly this was the son of God. 

Thus tying back to John 10 when it was said truly this wassss the son of God. There's no more son of God. That was the end of the son. I think I'll make a separate topic on that alone. Is there a son of God in heaven now? Should be an interesting perspective to look at on that topic.

I'm going to ask you, when the spirit is taken away from the body, is it dead?

If you say no, you're going to make John 19:30 a lie.

Hey accept that other debate challenge and we can talk about the so called trinity all you want. My response to this is as the scripture say there is one God, one God the Father. Not sometimes, not here and there. Very plain. 

Scripture say in the book of Malachi, have we not all one Father, have not one God created us?

There's a pattern here or consistency for one God , who is he according to scripture? The Father.

If this one God is not the Father, where did the Father go and if we have another spirit that is not the Father, we have more than one spirit where the scripture says in Ephesians I believe, one spirit.

This so called trinity thing won't be easy with me if you do accept that challenge. 

I don't know what you mean by "works died ". Do you mean while that person is still living or dead as well ? Do you mean if the person dies, the works done in that person came to an end as well?

Sure. The body without the spirit is dead. Scripture mentions about being dead in sin. But having the spirit of Christ, you're made alive and live in those works or fruits of the spirit.

I really don't understand what you're saying here with the equal of himself and worth. Scripture teach you take what is simple and invent complicated schemes.

Just to leave it simple, there is never God that is not the Father. If so , you tell me where he went? If he's still there , well now, we're still talking about Father God. You can switch the titles around but we still have one Father, one God. 

The Father begotten his son you can call God, but it's still the Father because when is God not the Father?

When he said in Hebrews unto the son he said thy thrown O God, still Father God.  Why? there is one God the Father. In other words, inseparable at all times .

I know, mystery, mystery, great is the mystery.

No I'm hardly saying anything but what the scripture says. I told you what John 10 says about what the Jewish religious leaders reaction was, what they said to Jesus saying he was a mere man. 

Philippians 2 , Amen.

Yes because the mystery is hard to get, it's easier to just strawman the "trinity" doctrine. Then you run into more error with the questions I pose exposing more inconsistency.

See the scriptures teach about operations and diversities of gifts. Not persons. That is a man made concocted doctrine from the Catholics I believe. Something else not scripturally based.

NO. The scripture says he is the truth. The scripture say let God be true and every man a liar. Scripture say rightly dividing the word of truth. So where it says no man have seen God at any time, that would have to be true too. 

You have to rightly divide these passages to be able to get consistency out of them. Without doing that, you'll wind up in error saying there's a contradiction.

There are a few instances I can think where people saw the manifestation of God before seeing him when they saw the son.

I know there was one with Jacob. You have the burning bush . You have what Abraham saw. Several instances of seeing God. In manifestation per se. So anybody saying no one has seen God or nothing manifested of God, that person is going to have trouble all throughout scripture.

Scripture teaches he fills heaven and heaven. So anybody saying God can only be in one place is going against scripture .

You're turning the scripture into a lie. The Lord God asks does he not fill heaven and earth.

You're saying he can't be everywhere. If he can't be everywhere in heaven and earth, how can he fill it?

You're making the scriptures contradict over and over. Scripture say let God be true and every man a liar.

This is your personal interpretation. Scripture speaks of no private interpretation. You accept the first part of the verse rejecting the second.

You reject what Jesus said. Jesus even said the Father is in heaven and the Father is in him. Jesus was on earth so that's heaven and earth and you come behind Jesus saying "no, God can't be everywhere"(in heaven and earth).

I'd advise you to take heed to this  as the scripture say ye do well that ye take heed .

You leave this subject alone. You've gone deep in error in it . Let alone other things on this topic.

When Jesus was hanging there dead in the cross. They didn't break his legs because he was dead already. That is dead .

Now the Father was in the body to raise it up so the Father rose up. Scripture say in 1 Thessalonians 1 and 10 I believe of him whom raised his son from the dead .

There we go with that "dead" again.

I believe in the book of Corinthians again it was asked how are the dead raised up. If Christ be not risen , how are the dead raised?

That's why the scripture refer to him as the firstborn. To be firstborn which also has him to be the rock, chief cornerstone of the church so everyone else can be born again born but this time into the church.

Well he was God and there is one God the Father. Don't forget. He said before Abraham, I am. Scripture say before the mountains were.......thou art God .

You're saying a lot of things here and have not given any scripture to back it up. So unless you be found a liar, book of Proverbs 30 teaches not to add unto his words.

Accept that other debate challenge comrade.

Have I not given scripture to explain all this?

Can you refer back to what I've said or do I have to repeat these things over and over?

Have you been so long in this debate and not know these things?

That trinity doctrine got you tossed to and fro as the scripture talks about.

"it’s Jesus the human(the manifestation of God)that died, not God(not the Spirit)."

Pay attention to the distinction there. I've been rightly dividing in this specific way from the beginning.

Again, your interpretation. Scripture say of all thy getting get understanding. You're suppose to get an understanding of what I mean instead of overriding it with your subjective interpretation.

Just like with Jesus, right. He spoke many things you have to get understanding of. The scripture is against ultimately hate. But Jesus said if you do not hate, you cannot follow him basically. You have to get understanding of what is being said.

Scripture said basically, come let us reason together. We should be at the reasoning already that I never said deity or the spirit came to an end.

I don't know why you're saying "If Jesus is God". You already agree the scripture teaches that he was or is. This should be "being that Jesus is God".

The body without the spirit is dead. That spirit had to forsake that body. Then he said it was finished, bowed his head and that was the end of the son of God. End of the Father being manifested.

Jesus said the Father in him , He does the works. So he was God manifested in the flesh .

The scripture say these three are one. So you can't leave out the Father when you talking about God. This is where the trinitarians mess up in their theology .

Much of what you had to say following this last statement of yours was just heavy criticism. I don't need to respond to that. Go ahead, get it all out.

No. That's too vague. I mean to argue and have successfully done so, the Father died on the cross.

All I had to prove was that the Father was manifested in flesh. I've done that.

Let me pull one of your responses that pretty much agreed :

“Was the works of the Father God made manifest in the flesh?” 

You answered:

Thereby the works of the Father came to an end on the cross. It's just as plain as that. Without complicating, you see .

Nah I rest my case. The opposing side is stumped.