I dunno if this is the distinction you're making (yours seems far deeper) but obviously it's useful to have a way to distinguish whether you're talking about a Jewish guy named "Jesus" who historically was born, lived, and was crucified dead ... (A flesh&blood historical man who all but the most extreme debaters can admit probably lived) ...
And the flesh&blood Jewish MESSIAH who fulfills various historical prophecies ...
And an Incarnation of GOD, Risen from the Dead ...
And even (and I think most can agree with me up to here, but now maybe less) an aspect and part of GOD who was not fully GOD but performing a needed function of the Divine. (Simple examples of that is when Jesus is praying in Gethsemane, he speaks of his will being subject to the Father's will; when they ask Jesus when will the End Times come ... he says he doesn't know, the angels don't know ... only the Father knows)
If you call him Jesus he can be either historical mortal Jew, or Incarnated Divinity inside a mortal human being, but you're emphasizing the flesh & blood man ...
Calling him Christ suggests to your acceptance of his Divine mission as prophecy-fulfilling Messiah ... it's a function, a role he fulfilled (well, that you're saying he fulfilled)
Calling him the Son I suppose means you're putting him in the context of BEING Divine.
If I've just stated the obvious, or been redundant to other points already made ... my apologies.
But here's my thing: I've had this discussion with sincere Christians who sincerely haven't thought about these distinctions. And that bothers me, theologically. They seem to think that "Jesus" was God walking around, doing some kind of theatrical role, waiting to pull a rabbit out of the hat, almost feigning death because he's SO POSITIVE he'll be raised from the dead.
Gethsemane points out that isn't so. Jesus had valid human doubts ... overcome by his absolute human faith.
Jesus, on the cross, was as dead as anyone who ever died.
It wasn't a theatrical necessity, a role, an act. That would have made a lie of the great Sacrifice.
Again, that's probably very obvious to everyone here, but I know good Church-going people who, because they know how the story ends, have never really thought about how Jesus the man felt in Gethsemane ... and maybe that's missing something very important.
Jesus said to take up his cross.
Even if some (and I'm included there) cannot grasp the terror and pain and sacrifice of that ourselves ... we can at least try to imagine what it was like for the man praying to be spared it -- and then accepting it as cosmically necessary.
But first we have to make the distinction you've asked about, imo.
I guess it does make sense that using the title of Christ or Messiah would convey a distinct tone in your piece and might spark a different consideration in the reader. It certainly evokes more of a sense of Christ's authority as one who was prophesied to come as a teacher and ruler.
