with the humanity—and thus, with that human nature, he took his seat at the right hand of the divinity. What partition or fragmentation could be more explicit than this?

This is not prophetic speech for which one might plead, “It has a hidden meaning we cannot grasp.” It is the invention of their own leading theologians, whose words they turned into an article of faith. If those scholars spoke without understanding, they are ignoramuses who deserve no following. But if they did understand what they said, then no one can possibly comprehend how the divinity united to the humanity could sit at the right hand of a divinity stripped of that union—unless this “bare” divinity is separate and distinct from the “united” divinity, not connected to it at all. At best it would merely touch it, and in fact the only thing that could touch the bare divinity would be the humanity together with the divinity conjoined to it. This is the very essence of partition and division, with one part standing apart from the other.

Moreover, they may be asked: Is the one who united with the Messiah the Essence of the Lord of all worlds, or one of His attributes? If it is the Essence, then it is the Father Himself, which would make the Messiah the Father Himself—something all Christians agree is false. They say, as God has reported of them, that he is God and the son of God; they do not say he is both Father and Son. Yet for them the Father is God, and this exposes their contradiction.

If they answer that what united with the Messiah is a divine attribute, then a divine attribute never leaves its bearer and cannot unite with, or indwell in, anything apart from the Essence. Furthermore, an attribute by itself is not the God who creates and sustains the universe; it is merely His attribute. No rational person would claim that the speech of God, or the knowledge of God, or the life of God, is