Nope
Nope
Nestorius “denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ … (and) virtually held to two natures and two persons.” Nestorius taught that while Christ suffered in His humanity, His deity was uninvolved (which was also the view of John of Damascus). The teaching was a denial of a real incarnation; instead of affirming Christ as God-man, He was viewed as two persons, God and man, with no union between them. Nestorius believed that because Mary was only the source of Jesus’ humanity, He must be two distinct persons.
An interesting take is that the reason why Nestorius was against Mary being the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Jesus is that he was afraid that the Catholic would push to far, which they did. They teach Mary is the Mother of God, and thus God has to listen to Mary His mother. Also, I read that we can't be sure what Nestorius actually taught because most of what exists in the historical record was written by people who hated him, and no compunctions in lying. So while what we have in nestorianism is a heresy, we can't be sure that is what he ACTUALLY taught/believed.
You do realize it was the deity of Christ in sacrifice that gives the sacrifice its great value
I'm not sure what this has to do with PSA. Are you still trying to separate the man from the deity and removing the man from the sacrifice? I didn't go back, but I believe I said that Jesus sacrifice is special in that the sacrifice and the High Priest that sanctified that sacrifice were in one body. It is the sanctification of the high priest, in this case the High Priest that is the Word of God, that gives the sacrifice its great value. However, scripture also places this on Jesus, the God man, the human nature taking on the wrath of God willingly as being beyond value. He volunteered. Only one time did He show any sign of self, and immediately bowed to the will of the Father... in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Did you actually address these?
2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
If God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, how could he forsake Christ?
I believe you were trying to present a logical rational argument here, but I don't see it. I gave the premise and you changed them, so there is no rational argument here. Now, perhaps God can stand sin and just told us He can't. I believe there is a term for that. Or perhaps you will understand that while Jesus, the human nature, was carrying sin, God could not have anything to do with Him. Jesus said why did God forsake Him, where the reality is the sin that was borne in sacrifice, cut off fellowship with God, who can have nothing to do with sin. Jesus knew this was coming in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the knowledge was of such effect that He sweat drops of blood. He knew what He was going to face (Jesus, the human nature), and bowed to the Father and said, Your will be done. (figuratively bowed to the Father). God was in the sacrifice of His Son, reconciling the world to Himself. Consider the context. He is not counting their trespasses against them because of the sacrifice. By the sacrifice He entrusted to us the message of reconciliation.
So instead of asking why God didn't just bask in sin in Christ, consider that what happened is that the fellowship between the human and divine nature in Christ was cut off while the human nature bore man's sin in sacrifice. Or can God have fellowship with sin?
Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.
This states he did not
Hebrews 5:7 (LEB) — 7 who in the days of his flesh offered up both prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard as a result of his reverence.
As does this
I repeat
It is inconsistent to hold a view of the trinity and believe God could forsake God
Reverse Nestorianism? Jesus was only God with not a shred of humanity, or a human nature? I mean, that is what I just saw you say. Again, Jesus said forsake, which was His reaction to the fellowship between the human nature and the divine nature being cut off while the human nature bore man's sin in sacrifice. It isn't at all a difficult concept. Are you going to deny Jesus was tortured by the Romans while God watched on? That He was crucified and hung on a tree, which is to be cursed, while God simply watched on? Or, will you realize that there is more going on? I don't emphasize the wrath of God in PSA. I emphasize the substitutionary atonement. The wrath of God is that Jesus was tortured by the Romans, was hung on a cross, and was made to carry our sin in the first place. The fact that Jesus did this WILLINGLY is the heart of PSA. I don't agree with the focus on the wrath, when the focus should be on the substitution.
