Aquinas First Way -- a problem?

[Mallz]

God is pure actuality. However, God became human which He previously wasn't. Right?

Was that a potential being actualized?
Or is humanity a part of God as God is being and everything is within God and God is within everything so in actuality humanity is a part of God?

Trying to work through this.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that you always have to be careful and clarify what you mean when you say "God is everything and within everything" for obvious reasons.

God being pure actuality means that He lacks nothing and is self-sustaining BUT I don't think that it means that God can't be/become something "else" and that He will somehow stop being God.
Is that your concern? that by "being" something other than "Just God" that somehow God stops being God?

[Mallz]

I think that you always have to be careful and clarify what you mean when you say "God is everything and within everything" for obvious reasons.

Yes, very true. Lets just scratch that train of thought.

God being pure actuality means that He lacks nothing and is self-sustaining BUT I don't think that it means that God can't be/become something "else" and that He will somehow stop being God.
Is that your concern? that by "being" something other than "Just God" that somehow God stops being God?

It's that He has the potential. If He is pure actuality, He would have no potentiality to actualize. So why did God actualize a potentiality to take on a human essence? <-- Is that even right to say? I'm hoping not.
Isn't the point of the pure actuality, the unmoved mover, is that He does not have potentiality?

[PaulSacramento]

I think that you always have to be careful and clarify what you mean when you say "God is everything and within everything" for obvious reasons.

Yes, very true. Lets just scratch that train of thought.

God being pure actuality means that He lacks nothing and is self-sustaining BUT I don't think that it means that God can't be/become something "else" and that He will somehow stop being God.
Is that your concern? that by "being" something other than "Just God" that somehow God stops being God?

It's that He has the potential. If He is pure actuality, He would have no potentiality to actualize. So why did God actualize a potentiality to take on a human essence? <-- Is that even right to say? I'm hoping not.
Isn't the point of the pure actuality, the unmoved mover, is that He does not have potentiality?

As the sustain-er of humanity ( since we are talking about becoming human) God is ALL that humanity is ( not evil of course because that is a LACKING in humanity- lack of being good-) in actuality with NOTHING left to potential, so when God becomes human, He is truly the ONLY FULLY Human there is because He is "actually" human, know what I mean?

[Mallz]

Could you elaborate for me?
Is humanity an aspect of God?
Run through with me how there is no reduction in potentiality when the Word became Jesus. Jesus always was 'actually' human?

[Jac3510]

God is pure actuality. However, God became human which He previously wasn't. Right?

Was that a potential being actualized?
Or is humanity a part of God as God is being and everything is within God and God is within everything so in actuality humanity is a part of God?

Trying to work through this.

The change did not happen in the divine nature, but in the human (created) nature. Put differently, God created a human with the potentiality to be fully God, and He Himself fulfilled that potentiality. And yes, I said that God created a human. I did not say that He created a Person. The man Jesus came into existence a finite time ago. The Person who Jesus is did not. The created order--the human nature--is what changed. So, again, we see that it is the created order--the human, the man--that had the potentiality to exist side by side with the divine nature in the same Person. Yet it should be clear that there is no change in the divine nature . . . no more than God creating anything requires a change in His nature. That's why we say that all things participate in God even though God participates in nothing.

The difficult question here is actually not the relationship between divine simplicity and the incarnation. It's actually between human nature and divinization or deification. What does it mean for a man to become God?

[Mallz]

The change did not happen in the divine nature, but in the human (created) nature. Put differently, God created a human with the potentiality to be fully God, and He Himself fulfilled that potentiality. And yes, I said that God created a human. I did not say that He created a Person. The man Jesus came into existence a finite time ago. The Person who Jesus is did not. The created order--the human nature--is what changed. So, again, we see that it is the created order--the human, the man--that had the potentiality to exist side by side with the divine nature in the same Person. Yet it should be clear that there is no change in the divine nature . . . no more than God creating anything requires a change in His nature. That's why we say that all things participate in God even though God participates in nothing.

That satisfies my original question, and brings up others along with the quote below..

The difficult question here is actually not the relationship between divine simplicity and the incarnation. It's actually between human nature and divinization or deification. What does it mean for a man to become God?

I'd like to give the due diligence to my response. Give me a little time ^_^