Logical problem in Christology (from a Mormon)

I (a Christian) have been in several groups and see this argument poised here and there. I believe they get it from the Mormon apologist Blake Olster, but I could be mistaken. However, the problem below is the supposed “issues” with Christology. Any sort of information to help rebut these arguments would be much appreciated. Edit: I did not come up with this question, a Mormon did. I am simply asking for clarification, a new perspective or if there’s something I’m missing. I fully disagree with the below “argument.” It’s fallacious and completely wrong. **The Problem of Christology:** **A. If God is the essentially uncreated and the only one of its kind, then Christ cannot be fully divine.** 1. It is possible for a single person to be at once both fully human and fully divine. 2. Human nature is such that it is essentially created at some time. 3. Divine nature is such that it is essentially uncreated and timeless. 4. A nature defines what is essential to the kind that an individual is. 5. It is impossible for a single person to be both human (created) and also divine (uncreated) natures. (From 1, 2, and 3). (65) Premise #4 entails the denial of #5 and therefore one of them is false. **B. If God possesses essentially attributes that humans cannot possess essentially, then Christ cannot be both human and divine.** 1. God is essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) 2. Jesus Christ was and is fully God/divine. 3. Jesus Christ was and is fully human. 4. Necessarily, no human is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) Whatever God’s nature is, human nature essentially cannot be / Whatever God’s nature is, human nature must be essentially different.