What makes most sense to me is that the nativity scene in Matthew and Luke was written quite a while after the Jewish cult of Xtianity had gotten its start. You can watch the progress of theories about Christ by reading the letters of Paul (the authentic ones) and the 4 gospels. I disregard the pastoral tracts' opinions about Christ as mere polemics, quite political in nature. Kind of snarky.
Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.
Mark, the next earliest writing we have in the canon, thought Jesus was given power by God (did not become God), at his baptism. Which helps explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.
Matthew and Luke adopted the pagan virgin birth narrative from Greek tradition. The differing geneologies represent the differing Jewish and Greek mystery religion schools of thought. Their embarrassment at the baptism question is evident.
Only John, the latest gospel with the highest Christology, thought Christ as the Logos (word) was with God from before creation, was the spirit moving over the waters. I believe Jews think this co-creator was the Shekhina however (sometimes thought of as a female named Wisdom).
John does not have Jesus bother with the baptism at all. In facxt, there is confusion as to who is the Christ (Messiah), Ioannes (John) or Ioesous (Jesus). The book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
delves deeply into the John/Jesus linkage and battle for power amongst early CE Messiah cults. Facscinating window onto history.
Jesus was voted in as God, part of the trinity, at the council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Those Chrisitan bishops that objected were asked to leave the council. Their objecting letters are still extant.
I can't imagine what other forum this thread started in!