The Incarnation of The Logos and Divine Impassibility.

There are a number of disputes within Christianity where I take what can be labeled the "Compromise" position.  There is a natural tendency to think the "Compromise" is least likely to be true, and maybe that's the case when it comes to Political and Economic policies.  But when it comes to debating The Bible I've come to feel many major ongoing disputes within Christianity are based on both sides agreeing on something that is actually wrong, that wrong assumption creates contradictions where there are none, and so they fight over how to reconcile that.

For example my taking what can be considered a "Mid-Trib" position on The Rapture.  You see Post-Tribers and Pre-Tribbers actually agree that Revelation 19 depicts the Parusia (Second Coming) while I have observed that chapter 19 has nothing in common with any description of the Parusia.  Post-Tribbers will see The Parusia in the same passages of Revelation I do, and then will garble it's chronology to make them happen at the same time as Revelation 19.  While Pre-Tribbers will separate the Rapture from the Second Coming thus defining it badly and refusing to see it in Revelation at all.

Arminians and Calvansits both agree that not everyone will be saved, and so they both take opposing routes to reconcile that with how God can be both All Powerful and All Loving.

Hebrew Roots people and "YHWH is Satan" people both agree that if The Law was a curse that must say something bad about the God who wrote it.  So one side denies that Paul said The Law is a Curse, and the other says an Evil God wrote it.  I however simply conclude that The Law was a "Curse" that served a purpose.

I've been trying to decide what side to take in the Chalcedonian v Miaphysite v Nestorian dispute about the Nature of the Incarnation of Jesus.  All three agree with the Nicene view of The Trinity, and that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Nestorius and Cyril were the opposites here, but the Council of Chalcedon happened after Cyril died so Calcedonian denominations consider Cyril a saint and deny that his theology was more Miaphysite even though Miaphysites defined their position entirely on what Cyril taught.

Cyril taught that Jesus had One Nature that was both Divine and Human somehow.  Nestorius taught that Jesus had two Natures that were entirely separate.  And the position agreed on at Chalcedon was that Jesus has two Natures that are mixed.

I lean towards that third position, but to a certain extent consider it all semantics that is certainly not essential to understanding The Gospel.  And I know that both Nestorians and Miaphysites have had their position misrepresented a lot by those who disagree with them, so I want to be careful talking about them.

The position taken at Chalcedon seems like a middle ground reached once Cyril and Nestorius were both no longer around.  So the question I asked was, is there a wrong assumption that Cyril and Nestorius both shared?  For awhile I couldn't think of one, but then I read this article about Cyril.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2017/10/jesus-christ-god-son-without-human-person/

St. Cyril consistently discussed the differences between Jesus’ divinity and humanity, affirming those differences as continuing after the incarnation, so he would be able to say the one Lord Jesus Christ, God, died on the cross, suffering only in relation to his humanity while being impassible in his divinity.

The sentiment that it was only the Humanity and not the Divinity that Suffered was also expressed by the Nestorians that I'd read a few times before this and was always uncomfortable with, the main thing really that kept me from embracing the Nesotrian position since I have a lot of sympathy for them looking at what happened at Ephesus and during Jusitnian's Reign.

And I'm not the first person to note that Cyril and Nestorius agreed on this, calling it Divine Impassibility.
http://www.drurywriting.com/john/GodTastedDeath.pdf

It seemed intuitively obvious to all parties involved that if God suffered, then God would cease to be God.

I feel inclined to consider this wrong, I believe the Incarnation was partly about God becoming Man and experiencing what we experience.  That's what I feel Hebrews is actually saying.  Revelation 5 has The Lion of Judah at the Right Hand of The Father in the form of "A Lamb as it had been slain".

It can be interesting to compare this dispute to the one I mentioned earlier, because Calvanists love to identify themselves with Augustine and Arminains somewhat more reluctantly identify with Pelegius.  Allies of Pelegius joined forces with Nestorius while Cyril had ties to Augustine.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/05/original-sin-and-ephesus-carthages-influence-on-the-east/

The concept of Impassibility comes from Plato and Artistole's views of God, YHWH in the Hebrew Bible is a very emotional God.

But I should again stress that most people called Nestorians do not necessarily believe the fullness of what Nestorius taught, and Nestorius own views were often misrepresented.  In fact a Patriarch of the "Nestorian" Church during the reign of Justinian accepted Theotokos as a title of Mary.

Update April 2019:

I should stress that I'm aware of arguments that Cyril's Christology wasn't really Miaphysite and perfectly compatible with the later Chalcedonian Confession.  Even if that's true Miaphysite Christology still emerged as an extreme reaction to Nestorianism that had it's roots in extreme rhetoric Cyril used in opposing Nestorius.  And while both sides of the Chlacedonian Schism claim Cyril, the Miaphysites are clearly way more invested in Cyril.

I know that most Christians we call Nesotrian are not really all that interested in the peculiar Christology of Nestorius but simply a Communion of Churches that split off from Imperial Christianity at Ephesus (and perhaps to same extent people who split off a the Fifth Council later joined them) because they didn't agree with condemning Nestorius as a Heretic.

I wonder how much the same is true of Miaphysite Churches, particularly the Coptic, Nubian and Eritrean Churches in Africa which may have nominally become Miaphysite simply because it was through Egypt they entered Communion with Roman Christianity.