Can God love?

[Angrboda]

Before I respond, I'd like to know your beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, so I don't misrepresent you.  The traditional doctrine is that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which makes sense to those who, for whatever reason, do not understand the meaning of the word 'fully'.  Or was it some split, that, say, Jesus was 60% divine and 40% human?  Or were there two Jesuses, one human and one divine?  What exactly are your beliefs here?

Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

It's not clear what specific meaning to attach to the passage you cite, as it's vague and speaks in metaphor. It's also unclear what to make of it given that it appears to be contradicted by Colossians 2:9 which says: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..." All it seems to indicate is that no one checked the bible for consistency.

Regardless, I'm not sure this formulation of yours is entirely helpful. It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is not composed of any parts?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he consists of a body and a soul or spirit?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is a necessary being?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is a contingent being?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is immortal?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is mortal?

Google dictionary defines an essence as, "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is." Wikipedia for its part has this to say about essence:

In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. ... For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).

Wikipedia || Essence

So a thing's essence is that by which we are able to identify something as a specific kind of thing. Thusly, a thing maintains a particular identity only in so far as it possesses all and only those essential properties which define that thing. If you subtract essential properties from a thing, then it is no longer that thing. This pertains to Christ if the supposed attributes he gave up are essential properties. (Note that the trinity is defined as three persons who possess one essence. If Jesus and God the Father possess different essential properties, you've entered the land of polytheism.) So a thing is no longer that thing if it is without some of the essential properties which define that thing. Likewise, if a thing possesses additional essential properties, it is no longer that thing, for the thing that it was is without essential properties which it has. (This does not apply to accidental properties which you can add and subtract all day long.) It's also worth noting that the essential attributes which define a man do so only with respect to the man, not necessarily with respect to Jesus, as they are not the sole essential properties which Jesus possesses. If Jesus possesses both the essential properties of man and God, then he is neither man nor God, but something else entirely new. (Which violates the doctrine that Christ is co-eternal with God the Father.) In that case, Jesus would be 'a' god, perhaps, but not God with a capital 'G'. The only way you can successfully identify Jesus as God is to treat the man-like properties as accidental properties, such that Jesus does possess all and only those essential properties which define him as God. But then your contention that Jesus is both man and God is false because he no longer possesses the essential properties of a man. It seems that the only way you can reach the conclusion that Jesus is both man and God, at least along this path, is by playing with essential properties in a way which is not valid, which undermines your entire argument.