In this sentence you used God and the Godhead interchangably. If this is to be the accepted starting premise, then I will agree. But if Jesus as God is separate from the other 'persons' (yes, I agree much better than 'beings') of the Godhead, then I stand by my original reasoning. It is not the 'nature of God' that is resricted as much as it is Jesus as God the Son through obedience to the Father restricting himself.
We must believe that God became Jesus, fully God and fully man.
On this we agree.
"But if Jesus as God is separate from the other 'persons' (yes, I agree much better than 'beings') of the Godhead, then I stand by my original reasoning."
Be careful. Again, this can be complicated. The Three Persons of the Trinity are NOT separate in any way. They are distinct merely in their relationship to each other. They do not share the divine nature, they each possess it totally and completely. To separate the Three Persons is to tread on polytheism again.
"It is not the 'nature of God' that is resricted as much as it is Jesus as God the Son through obedience to the Father restricting himself."
Yes, this is different than saying the divinity of God is restricted, yes? The nature of God remains unchanged. Yet, the Logos took on a second nature so that He could suffer and save us. Perhaps you are beginning to see why the Church went through several hundred years before they defined the limits of who and what God is (or perhaps, it is easier to say what God is not, according to Augustine).
Why the quibbling over what God is? This revelation of who God is is an act of love similiar in its depth to Calvary. We should become aware of who God is, not only because we love Him and this is a deeply personal revelation that was not necessary, but it also gives us hints of how we are made in God's image (especially realized in marriage) and what we will enter when we move on to heaven to "share in the divine nature" as Peter wrote in Scripture.
Take care