Nestorianism -- clarification please

[Ana_v]

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. ( Correct )

Jesus died on the cross.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, God died on the cross. (Problem)

Jesus was tempted by Satan.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, God was tempted by Satan. (Problem)

We know that a great many Protestants object to the title of Mary as Mother of God. Supposing that they understand the meaning of the title and nevertheless reject it (as opposed to rejecting it on the basis of a misunderstanding, as I once did, thinking it meant Mary created or pre-existed God) we point out to them that human nature doesn’t exist as such, mothers do not conceive and give birth to mere human natures, but to persons, and Jesus is a divine person who possesses a human nature. To deny that Mary is the mother of God is to deny the hypostatic union.

But … what about the two other examples provided above. Mere human natures don’t die, persons die. Mere human natures do are not tempted by Satan, persons are. If we say God did not die, or God was not tempted by Satan, are we denying the hypostatic union?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Therefore, God died on the cross. (Problem)

That’s not actually a problem. The Church defines “death” as the separation of the body and the soul. This clearly happened on the Cross.

You perceive a “problem” because you associate “death” with the cessation of life. But the Church does not teach any sort of idea.

Therefore, God was tempted by Satan. (Problem)

Satan proposed temptations, but Jesus rejected them immediately and outright. We cannot infer that Jesus was actually tempted (ie, had a desire to sin, even if the desire was checked).

There are many vices, and certain people are naturally immune to some of them. For my part, I am completely immune to the vice of excessive gambling. I’m a mathematician (as well as a mechanical engineer). I once visited a casino (in downtown Palm Springs, CA) with two friends. I wanted to put a single quarter into an old-fashioned one-armed bandit, and see and hear the gears spin, and perhaps hear the clink of quarters in the bin. I consider these analog machines to be a wonder of mechanical engineering and statistical probability. Alas, the casino had computer games with digitized sound effects and VGA dials. I never wagered my quarter.

I was surrounded by “temptation,” (roulette, blackjack, craps, etc) but did not once even consider participating in any of it. I was surrounded by “temptation,” but it was a “temptation” that I had no interest in.

 

[Pax]

That’s not actually a problem. The Church defines “death” as the separation of the body and the soul. This clearly happened on the Cross.

You perceive a “problem” because you associate “death” with the cessation of life. But the Church does not teach any sort of idea.

Satan proposed temptations, but Jesus rejected them immediately and outright. We cannot infer that Jesus was actually tempted (ie, had a desire to sin, even if the desire was checked).

There are many vices, and certain people are naturally immune to some of them. For my part, I am completely immune to the vice of excessive gambling. I’m a mathematician (as well as a mechanical engineer). I once visited a casino (in downtown Palm Springs, CA) with two friends. I wanted to put a single quarter into an old-fashioned one-armed bandit, and see and hear the gears spin, and perhaps hear the clink of quarters in the bin. I consider these analog machines to be a wonder of mechanical engineering and statistical probability. Alas, the casino had computer games with digitized sound effects and VGA dials. I never wagered my quarter.

I was surrounded by “temptation,” (roulette, blackjack, craps, etc) but did not once even consider participating in any of it. I was surrounded by “temptation,” but it was a “temptation” that I had no interest in.

For the sake of the OP I would only add that scripture actually says in effect that Satan did tempt God. We see that in the narrative where Satan tempts Jesus and Jesus then rebuffs Satan saying:

Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”[Matthew 4:7]

Hence as you say, the syllogism is not problematic.

God bless.