Angie, one of the things theologians -- and the rest of us, too, actually -- try to do is understand things we cannot understand. So in order to 'understand' the dual nature of Jesus, we try to say that this or that is impossible or must have been or whatever.
But we can't understand. We are finite beings with extremely finite minds.
For me, when the Bible says Jesus was tempted, and that He suffered when tempted, I -- in my finite mind -- do not see how suffering because of temptation could result from anything other than wanting what the temptation offered! That is what temptation is -- either causing you to want or playing upon a want you already have.
If Jesus had turned stones into bread in the wilderness, would that have denied His deity? I certainly don't see how -- it would have been affirming it, but at the expense of His humanity. In other words, the temptations to Jesus, from what I can see, were temptations precisely because they were tempting Him to deny His humanity, not His deity. Peter says to Him that it should never be that Jesus should be killed and Jesus looks at him and says "Get thee behind me, Satan!" It was a temptation to abandon the human, painful side and simply reclaim what He had voluntarily left behind to come to earth in His humanity.
Would that be sin? NO. There is no law that He would have broken, certainly. And that was the temptation -- to not go through with the deal.
And if He wasn't tempted where that was concerned, part of Him NOT wanting to go through with it all as a man, then we cannot say that He was tempted. The point is not that someone tried to tempt Him, but that He WAS tempted!
Now, can we honestly understand this? No, I don't think we can. And in the process of not understanding we can say that it was impossible for Him to sin, since He was God. But if He chose to do something, would it ever be sin, since, as God, He defined sin? Thus, if He had chosen to back out at that time, in essence abandoning the human side (sorry about that term, Preach, but it does make it a little more clear when I write), it would have been the right thing to do, by definition of Him being God.
Do we understand that? No. But then if that had been His choice, we might not be here to try to understand it!
Sometimes we have to let things be, because we cannot understand. But this is where trust in God comes in, and in His ability to communicate accurately with us. The Bible says Jesus was tempted, just as we are. It says He suffered as a result of these temptations, or in the midst of them. If He had been incapable of following through, and yielding to these temptations, then where does the suffering come in?
If someone presented raw liver to me and asked me if I wanted to eat it, I would not be tempted at all. I have NO desire to eat raw liver! Now, the dogs are a different story. For them, seeing it and hearing 'stay' requires an enormous amount of inward control and obedience from them, especially if they are hungry. They are tempted. I, however, am not.
There is no temptation where there is no desire.
Otherwise the word loses its meaning for us. And I remain convinced that God has communicated clearly to us in the Bible.