The problem is in using his humanity as a convenient tool for different situations, emphasizing his humanity in one instance and his divinity in another. Yet you will never read that any of the Apostles ever prayed to the risen Christ. They offer divine worship only to God (the Father), a significant detail everyone seems to miss or ignore or rationalize. Even Christ himself doesn't teach to pray to him but to the Father (the Lord's Prayer)!
But, accoridng to Orthodox theology, Jesus was never only man or only God, his humanity was always subordained in perfect obedience to his divinity and therefore free of sin, so at no time does Jesus' humanity take the center stage, his human will is never free to sin, but always in harmony with his divine will.
Therefore using his humanity when it's convenient to explain something strange and contradictory is invalid, unles sit is meant to covey that Jesus di suffer real pain and death in it. But his humanity never trumpted his divnity.
Nor was there any instance when Jesus in his divinity was not with the Father or the Spirit. Christ suffered and died in his human nature, but he never suffered and died in his divine nature.
That's why the Creed says "and he suffered and was buried" it doesn't say "he suffered and died." It doesn't say he came back to life, but that he "rose" on the third day accoridng to the scriptures (the Church changed 1 Cor 15:4 to read "rose" and not "was raised")
Orthodox theology is wonderful, but it doesn't reflect what's in the New Testament. +Paul and Synoptic Gospels of +Matthew, +Mark and +Luke keep subordaining Christ to the Father, in particular statements like "the Father is greater than I," or "God (the Father) raised him," or "the head of Christ is God (the Father)," etc.
In particular, +Paul also states that when the fullness of time came God (the Father) sent forth his son born of a woman [sic] under the law.
Now, "son of God" was a title in Judaism and it simply meant the messiah (christos in Greek), the anointed one. It didn't mean divine. Likewise, +Paul ignored (never mentions) Incarnation or the Virgin Birth, two mind boggling miracles of miracles and pillars of Christian faith.
+Paul taught what he calls "his gospel," and was known for changing word meanings as he pleased. For example, he made "christos," which is a title, into a proper name, and he used the word "anathema" (other Gospels never use it), as a curse (cf 1 Cor 16:22), whereas its original meaning was "setting aside," an offering to God.
His idea of Christ is something between man and God, perhaps an "ideal man" who was given divine powers, but definitely not God himself.
The one place where he does say that the fullness of Godhead was in him bodily is in Colossians, one of the two of the Epistles the scholars are seriously divided regarding its authoriship.
Since we don't have originals, but copies of copies hundreds of years after the originals were written, we have no way of telling what was added and what was removed.
Certainly, Colossians 2:9 is out of character with his other statements concerning Christ. It sticks out like a sore thumb, a la Comma Johanneum, which we know is a forgery.
There was a lot of "choreography" involved in creating a new religion, and +Paul was the chief arhcitect of that. He had to. Chgristianity was about to become extinct in Irsael and +Paul bore the heavy burden of selling a Jewish setc to pagan Greeks. In doing so, as he says, he was all thing to all people, as long as they converted.
For underestandable reasons, the Church presents and idealized picture of everything and reads only select passages from the Bible, concentrating not so much on the veracity of the story as much as on the moral message in it.