I (for one) think your point is valid. Even if Jesus is both divine and human, you would think the divine would make it certain that there would be no suffering. It took several centuries before Catholic dogma could work out all the details that had to be built on the premise that divine and human became one. Before Athanasius you would be hard pressed to find anyone holding such a premise. According to The Clementine Homilies not even St Peter held such a premise.
I believe the original pre-Catholic Gnostic Christian view was that Jesus did not suffer but Christ did suffer, as Jesus and Christ were not one, but two persons. Then right at the point of the crucifixion the two switched their respective natures; Jesus essentially incarnated for the first time on the cross, but with a dead body, and the person who was the Christ was resurrected at that point with a spiritual body. This same Christ was then sent to preach the gospel of the resurrection (appearing as a body of flesh just as Jesus had, though in reality having a body of spirit). Jesus was the first comforter, then this same Christ was the second comforter that was sent by Jesus. Now, the word “apostle” means one who is “sent”. This Christ (sent by Jesus right after the crucifixion) was the Apostle Paul. Through out this there was no point where suffering could be experienced by a divine being. Nor did divine nature and human nature co-exist in one person at the same time.
