I'm sure you know where I am going with this, "Jesus Christ is both God and Man". The dictionary definition above is not true, especially in monotheistic Christianity. The Trinity teaches that the one God is, was, and always will be one God. There is no ontological identical and opposite of himself or some other god being identical and opposite of himself. The God of the Bible is God alone and in a category of himself. There is no other of his kind and class, God is one. He cannot have any known or unknown ontological directional opposites and absences of himself. And there is no others before and after, above and below, backwards and forward, beside and inbetween, etc. Also the Hypostatic Union teaches that Jesus Christ is both God and man, but "God" and "man" are not directional opposites, they are in two different categories, and cannot be ontologically equivalent. The same applies to angels, the devil is not the opposite of God, as often depicted of good versus evil in context of opposite words. Angles are different categories, regardless if you can draw out opposites based on their attributes, its a categorical difference and not the same sense. God has no opposites of himself. Or any other known and unknown created thing. There is simply no identical and opposites of himself.
For example, Jesus Christ is a man entails that he is not a woman. The opposite of man is a woman from its ontological category or its kind and class of human beings. It would be a category mistake to assume that human properties being found in the category of a potent man, and then place it into the category of omnipotent God. As if God is both potent and omnipotent, ~(P ^ O). Both "God" and "Man" may have similarities and differences, but they will never be each other’s ontological directional opposites, and they will never collide or overlap into each other categories.
The phrase "Jesus Christ is both God and Man" is a claim that within the category "Nature", Jesus Christ is in both ontological categories "God" and "Man". These are not separate categories, but the same category called "Nature". (See definition of Hypostatic Union).
Further, being "Man" necessarily entails that Jesus Christ isn't "Bacteria" but being "Man" does not necessarily entail that he is not a woman. Jesus Christ being "male" within the ontological category "Man" is what necessarily entails that he is not "female" (see Gen 1:26).
The notion that "male" and "female" are considered opposites is because a difference can be found within one of their shared attributes. For example within their attribute of reproduction: males produce small motile gametes and females produce eggs. However, males and females are opposites in a very narrow range of differences when compared to the larger set comparisons (for example: alive versus inanimate, multicell versus single cell, animal versus plant, vertebrate versus invertebrate, mammal versus avian, bipedal versus quadrupedal, morally responsible versus non morally responsible, etc. . .).
The primary reason males and females are considered opposites because there are only two choices presented within the "Man" subset. If there were a 3rd choice available, the idea that males and females are opposites would be a more complex proposition.
Similarly, if "God" and "Man" are the only two choices presented within the category "Nature", then by default they are opposites and their distinctions within the same sense are used to set them apart. For example "immortal" and "mortal" are distinctions between "God" and "Man" within the category "Nature" and are related to the same sense: i.e. "ability to die".
1. Since Jesus Christ is both God and Man, then there exist a incompatibility binary relationship of having opposite properties. Because both God and Man are in different categories and not the same category. The binary relationship in the Hypostatic Union framework are often viewed in antonyms or opposite pair of words, which is a word that has the opposite meaning of another word. But not in the same sense because there are two different natures having their own respective properties and the Person is just a subject of predication. Whatever attribute the subject does according to the Divine Nature means he cannot do the opposite as being God alone (both omnipresent and non-omnipresent). And vice versa, whatever attribute the subject does according to the human nature means he cannot do the opposite as being Man alone (both localized and non-localized). The subject can do both at the same time, but not from the same sense based on their different categorical differences.
2. These two opposite ideas of God's "omnipresent" along with Man's "localized" are being jointed together in a logical conjunction "and" for a unique and contrasting framework. The doctrine define these logical conjunctions to be parallel expression of oppositions, which is a antithesis, from anti 'against' + tithenai "to place" or in other words, "a setting opposite or contrasting of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of," and those ideas might not always be structurally opposites in the doctrine, for example, "both equal and subordinate" are opposites, and "both omnipotent and ignorant" are not opposites. But both structures are logically valid within the framework, so its not always framed in oppositions to each other. This framework is to compare their indifferences and to emphasize the union.
The analysis asserts (without any support) that all actions taken by the person that are contradictory to one nature are exclusively attributed to the other nature. The question becomes: Are there actions that can be taken by the person that involve both natures but contradicts one of the natures?
For example: The person Jesus died. By definition he was mortal and not immortal. The immortality of one nature and mortality of the other nature are in direct contradiction. The attribute "ability to die" has a "yes" and "no" result in the same sense at the same time. To say that Jesus didn't die on the cross entails enormous theological ramifications.