That he did so sinlessly is expressly Christian, but if he were God from the beginning where is the sacrifice?
Is the belief that Mary is Christotokos a denial that Jesus became divine through obedience and faith or simply that He was not born divine?
Do you find it peculiar that Jesus the Christ had to ascend to his Father to complete his mission, bodily untouched by human corruption?
How would you critique or view the accuracy of this description from Wikipedia: Christology
These are all excellent questions, which would be better served as separate posts. What most people don't realize is that all Christological disagreements find their justification in the New Testament. There is no doubt that one can make a case for each quoting from it.
Thus, can we say that Jesus had to achieve theosis, and why would he need a theosis? Was it a sin, even if it was a fleeting moment, for him to ask if the Father could take away the cup? Why did his body have to be glorified? What is meant by him being baptized and "receiving" the Holy Spirit? If John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit before his birth, why would Jesus be without the HS before his own birth, let alone baptism? And what was the purpose of tempting Jesus (full of the Holy Spirit!) by the devil? To "torture" the devil?
There is also evidence that, despite his (ontologic?) equality with the Father, the Son is portrayed as lesser than the Father, and he even says "The Father is greater than I." This subordination of the Son—the very stuff Arianism is made of—runs throughout the Christian writings of the first, second and 3rd century.
Moreover, the exact "mechanism" of Incarnation is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. What is considered orthodox Christology today has more to do with the conciliar battles won by a certain faction than anything found in any of the holy books, perhaps because it was the prevalent belief but it doesn't have to be so. Maybe the orthodox party just had better "lawyers!" :)
Ultimately, Incarnation itself would be yet another miracle, a mystery of God which is not ours to understand or figure out. So, just how do we know exactly what took place and which of the Christological versions is the true one? We don't. Different people believe different Christological formulas because it is in line with the nature of their beliefs, their theological boxes, and their perception of the scriptures in general.
This, of course, runs contrary to any faith that claims absolute truth or absolute knowledge, and here we have a mine trigger of Gnosticim, for any faith that is claimed as knowledge is Gnostic in its foundation. Equating faith, hope, belief, with knowledge is Gnostic no matter how you turn it around.
Another pitfall is, of course, claiming faith to be fact, for facts must offer factual proofs and faith doesn't. Yet, for some reason, most people find it necessary to have some sort of "proof" of why they believe what they believe or else their faith may not last. They can live with blind love but not with blind faith...curious.
Why are there so many versions of Christianity? Some say devil, others say the NT is often unclear, culturally alien, etc. while others yet say that it reflects out imperfect understanding of a (presumably) perfect text.
It also has to do with the perceived purpose of Christ's ministry and sacrifice, but it makes sense to conclude that if everything is God's will then the disunity among Christians was either what God wanted, in which case the NT is a contradiction of itself, or the whole things it is a colossal failure, sort of like Gen 6:6, where God "regrets" what had happened with his mankind—as if it happened against his will and knowledge!
I find Wiki comments in the chapter on Christiology very valid observations.