I used epithet loosely. The use of "God" in the "God the Son" certainly involves "God" as title, not as descriptor, as it is directly analogous to "God the Father," which as found in Greek, involves "God" as the title of the Father, where "theos" is used with the Greek definite article.
We basically have the same definition but worded differently.
Binyawmene: "epithet" from Greek origins meaning “attributed to.” If so, then you are suggesting a byname, or a descriptive term, word, or phrase that accompanies or occurs in a place of a name.
c-jab: "epithet "an adjective or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned."
What do you know about Binyawmene? Something that would describe me or something that can be attributed to me. I like Hypostatic Union topics. So you can phrase this as "Binyawmene the Hypostatic Unionist". And what do you know about the persons in the Trinity? Just follow the line of reasoning I am explaining here. What can we describe or what can be attributed to the persons. Each persons is God, not three gods but one same God. Then you would phrase this as "God the Father," "God the Son," and "God the Holy Spirit".
God the Son is the second person of the Trinity and identifies as Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. He is united in the Divine Nature but distinct in person with regard to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son pre-existed before incarnation, is co-eternal with God the Father. So God the Son refers to his divinity. He is the self-same person in pre-existence, same person in incarnation, same person in resurrection, same person in exaltation, and continuously on-going forever.
In context between me and Yahchristian we specifically have the subject name.
1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
What do you know who Jesus Christ is according to the Trinity and Hypostatic Union? He is the second person in the Trinity, God the Son and God the Word. So the phrase "God in the flesh" is alluding to Jesus Christ. And "God" in the phrase "God in the flesh" is identified as God the Son who is the underlying subject of the flesh.
Moreover when the Greek Orthodox (mis)use "God the Son" they also (mis)use it with the Greek definite article, to denote the Son as the possessor of the very same title as the Father. But this isn't biblical. The Son isn't afforded the Father's "God" title, but he is afforded other comparable titles & descriptors involving form, nature, co-existence, power, sovereignty over creation.
Now that is interesting, I also say, "Whatever the Father is, the Son is". The thing is that since you don't believe in the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. Then of course you will say, "misused" or "misleading" because you don't like the idea of co-equality or the Son is equal to the Father. That's your worldview. Its only based on your opinion and assumption that other like-minded people might agree with.. But on the other hand, we (Trinitarians) believe the Son is equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature and subordinate to the Father according to the human nature.
Jn 1:1c, and in other places where anarthrous "theos" is used, involves "theos" as descriptor, not title.
I'm assuming you don't like the phrase "God the Word" too? Since both the Father and the Son has the same Divine Nature. Then the verse makes its conclusion in John 1:1c "the Word," is a definite nominative that precedes the verb “was,” is anarthrous, by refers to the qualities of “God” in the Greek θεός - transliteration theos is in possession by the Logos. Since anarthrous nouns are qualitative. The qualitative noun places the stress on the quality, the nature, or the essence of God. So in that sense it is correct to say, "God the Word" and the Logos is identified as the Son, or correct to say, "God the Son".
"God the Son" is a particularly inappropriate title for the Son in the NT, given his role in mediating the New Covenant, because it detracts from his mediatorship between God and man, which is based on his humanity, which is of vital importance and the foundation of true faith. Once you lose sight of his human mediator role, you are enveloped in a deist theology; and no appeal to a Trinitarian "God the Son" will help you back to orthodoxy.
As "God the Son," Christ has problems in continuing in his mediator role.
That might be a problem for your version of Christology to apply "God the Son". But for us (Hypostatic Unionists), we believe Jesus Christ is both God and man. So it doesn't matter how Christ functions from either divinity or humanity. He is still the self-same theanthropic person.
When you have defined how "God" can die, may be I will credit the hypostatic union. As even votaries of it concede, what was formulated at Chalcedon was inherently defective in terms of its coherence. And the "assumption of a human nature" is also problematic, as it detracts from and undermines the Logos "becoming" a man: the hypostatic unions suggests that he remained always "God" (descriptor).
Then there is the further issue that you insist on using the term "divine nature" in a way that is unscriptural, and which makes people assume that they are unable to emulate Christ. But 2 Peter exhorts all believers to put on the divine nature. People have been struggling with the hypostatic union ever since Chalcedon, tweaking it here and there. For me, it is an exercise in philosophy and nothing to do with religion.
We can discuss Jesus Christ's death after all Jesus Christ is God the Son incarnate. From my standpoint, death is simply a matter of the soul separating from the body. Then the immortal soul can no longer give life or existence to that body. A person would simply breathe their last breath and the body will stop functioning and shut down altogether. The same operation of the soul to the body happened in Jesus Christ. There is no difference because he has become one of us. Jesus breathed his last breath on the cross. That life or existence is cut-off from his body, but that life or existence is not cut-off from the soul. His soul and body separated, "He was put to death in the body" (1 Peter 3:18) and "he might taste death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:9), the sufferings of the body and death is being ascribed (1 Corinthians 2:8), again, death simply means "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). Therefore, the Son-Person died in the body only in the sense that his life was withdrawn from the body.
Omnipresence is a strange term, as it conceives God as somehow immanent in creation, which I suppose is true to an extent, but not in a pantheist sense. For God exists in heaven, outside the jurisdiction of the earth, from which vantage God knows and governs all things, even as Christ taught, and per Eph 4:6. Also see Rev 1:1 vis-a-vis the Son and his dependency relation with his Father.
When I discuss the omnipresence of Christ is refer to God's immensity is an essential property and implies both His "Being" and "omnipresence" that's 'transcending immensity' of the universe. This is understood as infinity is in relation to space and omnipresence is in relation to creatures. In Ephesians 4:10 "fill the whole universe" is the immensity of Christ, who "ascended higher than all the heavens". (Matthew 18:20, 28:20). The immensity of God doesn't have its basis from immanence in the sense of a 'divine presence' is operating within creation. We should not think of God being "in" the universe or the universe "in" God. But that God transcends the universe with His whole Being and is present everywhere. He is separate from His creation (Creator/creation separation) and He is transcendent. While in Theological classification, omnipresence itself is systematized under immanence of God, viewed in relation to His creation, and fills every point of space with His entire Being.
