The Inconsistency of Trinitarian Appeals to Jesus Two Natures

Introduction: When Theology Becomes a Moving Target

One of the most persistent difficulties within Trinitarian Christology is not simply what the doctrine claims, but how those claims are defended. While Trinitarianism asserts that Jesus is “fully God and fully man,” this formula is rarely applied with consistency. Instead, when faced with passages that present Jesus as limited, submissive, dependent, ignorant, or distinguishable from God, apologists appeal to His human nature. Yet the moment a passage portrays Jesus as powerful, authoritative, exalted, or heavenly, they appeal to His divine nature.

This selective oscillation—switching between “human Jesus” and “divine Jesus” as needed—creates a theological escape hatch used to neutralize any challenge. Rather than producing a coherent and stable doctrine, the two-natures model becomes a flexible tool deployed dynamically to defend contradictory claims. The result is a Jesus whose identity shifts mid-argument: limited when Scripture requires it, omniscient when theology requires it, submissive when context demands it, sovereign when dogma demands it.

This study examines some of the clearest examples of this problem—including the Gethsemane account—and shows how the selective use of Christ’s two natures generates contradictions that Trinitarian theology cannot resolve. But Gethsemane is only a window into a deeper structural issue: wherever Scripture attributes to Jesus anything incompatible with full deity, Trinitarianism assigns it to the “human nature,” and wherever Scripture attributes to Him anything transcendent, it is assigned to the “divine nature.” In practice, this creates two subjects where the doctrine insists there is only one.

The following analysis does not rely on philosophical speculation or post-biblical creeds, but on the plain logic of Trinitarian claims measured against the plain meaning of Scripture. The question is simple:

Can a theology that divides Jesus’ actions, knowledge, will, and consciousness between two distinct natures truly preserve Him as one coherent person?

As we will see, the answer is no. The selective use of Jesus’ two natures results in contradictions, not coherence—and the New Testament itself consistently points toward a far simpler, unified, and biblical understanding of who Jesus truly is.

The Gethsemane account is only one example of a much broader problem within Trinitarian Christology: its inconsistent and selective use of the humanity and divinity of Christ. Trinitarians often assert that Jesus is “100% God and 100% man,” yet in practice they appeal to His humanity or His divinity only when convenient, frequently switching categories mid-argument to avoid contradiction. This produces a theological patchwork rather than a coherent doctrine.

1. Jesus’ Will in Gethsemane Exposes the Contradiction

When confronted with Jesus’ statement, “Not my will but yours,” Trinitarians claim:

• “This is Jesus’ human will, not His divine will.”

But this creates several problems:

1. Two wills within one person
   According to classical Trinitarian metaphysics, “person” = a center of consciousness and will.
   If Jesus has:

   • a divine will, and

   • a human will,
     then He is two persons, not one.

   This is the heresy of Nestorianism, which the Trinitarian creed explicitly rejects.

2. Conflict between the wills
   Jesus’ human will desires escape from death.
   God’s will demands the cross.
   These wills conflict.

   This means:

   The divine nature and the human nature have contradictory desires inside the same “person.”

   Which is logically impossible.

3. Selective use of Jesus’ humanity
   Whenever Jesus shows limitation, ignorance, weakness, fear, or dependence, Trinitarians claim:

   “That was His human nature.”

   But when Jesus does miracles or speaks with authority, they claim:

   “See, this proves He is God.”

This selective switching reveals that the doctrine creates a modular Jesus, composed of two separate components used at will to defend contradictory claims.

2. Jesus Says He Does Not Do His Own Will — Which Refutes a Shared Divine Will

Jesus teaches:

“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” — John 6:38

Trinitarians insist the Father and the Son share one divine will.

If that were true, then Jesus’ statement becomes:

• meaningless,

• redundant,

• impossible.

Because if Jesus possesses the one divine will of God, then:

A. Jesus did do His own will — because His will = God’s will

If Father and Son share the same divine will, then there is no “my will” vs. “your will.”
This would mean Jesus’ statement contradicts Trinitarian theology:

• If there is only one divine will, then the Son cannot have a will distinct from the Father’s.

• Yet Jesus explicitly distinguishes His own will from the Father’s will.

B. Jesus’ statement only makes sense if their wills are truly distinct

Jesus says:

• “not my will”

• “but the will of Him that sent me”

This language demands two distinct wills.

That alone refutes the Trinitarian claim of one divine will shared by Father and Son.

C. Trinitarians are forced to claim Jesus meant “His human will”

But if the “human will” of Jesus is different from the “divine will” of Jesus, then:

• the human Jesus desires something the divine Jesus does not

• the divine Jesus desires something the human Jesus does not

This is not one person.
This is two personal centers, two psychological subjects, two willing agents.

Which Trinitarian orthodoxy prohibits.

---

2. Miracles Reveal the Same Inconsistency

When Jesus performs miracles, Trinitarians argue:

• “Only God can do this → Jesus is God.”

But the New Testament explicitly teaches:

• Jesus performed miracles by the power of God (Acts 2:22).

• Jesus says He can do nothing of Himself (John 5:19).

• The apostles performed the same miracles by God’s power (Acts 3:12; Heb 2:4).

• Others in Scripture performed miracles without being divine.

So when faced with this evidence, Trinitarians revert to:

• “Jesus did miracles by His divine nature, not His human nature.”

But if His divine nature was doing miracles:

• Then Jesus was not living as a human,

• He was not “emptied” (Phil 2:6–7),

• And He was not “tempted in every way as we are” (Heb 4:15).

Thus, His humanity is sidelined whenever divine actions need to be proven.

---

3. The Kenosis Problem (“He emptied Himself”)

Philippians 2:7 says Jesus emptied Himself.
Trinitarians interpret this in contradictory ways:

Option A: He emptied Himself of divine attributes

→ Then He is not “fully God.”

Option B: He did not empty Himself of anything

→ Then He is not truly human.

Option C: He emptied Himself of using His attributes

→ Then all miracles must be done by God the Father, not by Jesus as God.

These contradictory explanations are deployed depending on which Trinitarian claim needs to be defended at the moment.

---

4. “The Fullness of Deity Dwells in Him” — Another Contradiction

Trinitarians point to Colossians 2:9:

“In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

But if this means:

• Jesus did not truly lay aside divine power,

• and remained “fully God” in functional terms,

then the kenosis (He emptied Himself) becomes meaningless.

They affirm:

• Jesus “emptied Himself” → Jesus is truly human

• Jesus “has the fullness of deity bodily” → Jesus retains full divine attributes

• Jesus “acted through His human nature” → He did not use divine attributes

• Jesus “acted through His divine nature” → He performed miracles as God

The result is a self-negating system.

---

5. The Preexistence Contradiction

Trinitarians say:

• “Jesus preexisted eternally as God.”

• “Jesus became human at the incarnation.”

But this forces further contradictions:

1. If Jesus is one person, the person must preexist.
   → Therefore the human Jesus preexisted, which is impossible.

2. If only the divine nature preexisted, then:

   • the human Jesus did not preexist,

   • the person Jesus did not preexist,

   • only a divine hypostasis preexisted.

Thus:

• “Jesus preexisted” becomes “the divine nature preexisted,”
  which means Jesus Himself did not preexist.

This destroys the claim that “Jesus is God” in any literal or consistent sense.

---

6. The Underlying Problem: Two Natures = Two Beings

The Trinitarian Jesus has:

• two minds,

• two wills,

• two consciousnesses,

• two centers of desire,

• two abilities (one divine, one human),

• two kinds of knowledge,

• two kinds of power.

This is not one person.

It is two beings operating under one name.

Whenever Scripture describes Jesus in genuinely human terms, Trinitarians point to His humanity;
whenever Scripture describes Jesus in exalted terms, they point to His divinity.

The result is:

• Two Jesuses,

• selectively invoked depending on the argument at hand.

This is why the doctrine never produces consistent explanations.

---

Conclusion: A Contradiction, Not a Coherent Christology

The doctrine that Jesus is “fully God and fully man” is not maintained in practice by Trinitarian arguments. Instead:

• When Jesus shows limitation → “That is His human nature.”

• When Jesus shows power → “That is His divine nature.”

• When Jesus submits His will to God → “That is His human will.”

• When Jesus speaks with authority → “That is His divine will.”

• When Jesus says He does not know → “Human nature.”

• When Jesus knows something → “Divine nature.”

This is not theology.
It is ad hoc argumentation.

The plain biblical view avoids these contradictions entirely:

• Jesus is the human Messiah,

• empowered by God,

• obedient to God,

• distinct from God,

• and wholly dependent on God.

This is why the New Testament consistently identifies:

The Father as the only true God (John 17:3),
and Jesus as the Messiah whom He sent.

• If you liked this study please subscribe here
• You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
•  Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal