>>17927323
>in the sense Malcolm's hand is fully Malcolm.
Except it isn't, Malcolm's hand belongs to the set Malcolm it isn't it. If you cut off your nails did you suddenly lose yourself or just a part of you?
>What's X here?
Examples are in the image previously posted. The problem isn't the method of interaction but the fact that a being sharing human and divine natures is just the same as a shape sharing a circle and square nature. The attributes affirmed by each nature are negated by the other and thus cannot exist in the same object. Even if you are going to cope with the "parts" then you have just conceded that when Jesus incarnated he was never God at all, since he is just the human part of the godhead
>If there's anything I can say that I don't know with no shame whatsoever it's that I don't know what it feels like to be an omniscient immaterial being.
Except you do know if you read the bible and I explained to you how. But what is amusing about this line of thinking is how easily you claim to know how the trinity works when even church fathers explained it poorly enough to fall into heresy. Nowhere in the bible is it mentioned and this is why they and all trinitarian christians struggle to explain it coherently