>>17927341
>Except it isn't
Which part of the hand is non-Malcolm?

>Examples are in the image previously posted.
They seemed to be criticizing the model advocated by the other anon here that denies God having any parts. They seem to be criticisms of advocating for "divine simplicity" and also Trinitarianism, and I agree that those notions don't make sense together. I don't endorse "divine simplicity".

>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.
I don't see how that's any different from you being both physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Or really, if we're keeping the shape metaphor, your head being round but your ab muscles being square. (If you browse /fit/!)

You seem to really be overthinking the really simple notion that stuff has 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
"Part of the Godhead" means "part of God" which, yeah, that's what I've been saying. It's the same as you: you're a spirit piloting a body. The spirit piloting the body of Jesus happened to be a hypostasis of God.

>Except you do know if you read the bible
The Bible says God's thoughts are as far beyond our's as space is beyond Earth. It emphasizes precisely what I'm saying: God's mind is way way beyond our's. I can't adequately describe to you very unusual human mental states that I've experienced. Describing a totally foreign brain-state like a bat echolocating isn't something I can do either. So how much less am I able to describe a mind that isn't even based on a brain at all, which is omniscient and can almost be said to be "made of" logic itself?

Your argument is like denying the possibility of echolocation for bats because we don't know what the mental experience of this foreign sense would be like.