Bill Johnson

[Craig de CrossWise]

Following are the first two paragraphs in Bill Johnson’s chapter “The Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit” in When Heaven Invades Earth (on page 79 of the 1st edition - Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House/Destiny Image, 2003). I’ve provided the full context, then I’ll go through it step by step to show the error:

Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah. It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.

The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.

The first two sentences are absolutely 100% correct. Christ is not Jesus’ last name, and Christ means “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” It’s the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for Messiah. In the Greek it’s Χριστός (Xpistos, or Christos). It is usually preceded by the definite article (the) to indicate particularity. Jesus is the one and only Christ (Christos). We might even call him Jesus Messiah, or Jesus the Messiah.

But, we run into error in the next sentence:

It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience.

Jesus was identified as the Christ at the virgin birth (Luke 2:11). Is this the “experience” to which Johnson refers? The answer begins in the next two sentences:

It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.

I suppose someone could say that Jesus was only identified as the Christ just after birth, rather than conception and construe Johnson as fine so far. However, most would claim that Jesus WAS sent from heaven to earth with the title of Christ, since He was identified as the Christ in Luke 2. But, what is this “experience,” this “anointing” and when did it occur? The answer is supplied in Johnson’s next three sentences:

The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.

Johnson’s concluding sentence is absolutely incorrect and a dangerous false teaching. Jesus was the Christ well before baptism. While He was certainly anointed by the Spirit at baptism, He was already Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” does not imply, it is explicit in identifying Him as the one, unique Christ, Messiah.

According to the Greek, the word for anointing is χρῖσμα (Xpisma, or chrisma). While we can, and do, say that Jesus was anointed at baptism, He was the Christ from the virgin birth (or virginal conception) as Luke makes clear. So, while Jesus received the chrisma of the Holy Spirit at baptism, He was the Christos at the virgin birth.

Johnson, on the other hand, is making the claim that Jesus became the Christ at baptism as a result (“experience”) of the anointing.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Right. I do see it differently than you because of his OVERALL attitude of
the subject. You seem to be quite familiar with his work. Does he indeed
say that Jesus is not God or imply it in any way in any of his statements
some where that we can compare

I'm sorry that i may be 'curt' and 'non warm fuzzy' again if we continue
to engage so i hope you will not hope for much in the way of warm fuzzy
and just have to be content with knowing that God is our judge and He
alone knows my heart and is able to keep me in line

I've just posted a lengthy comment illustrating how Johnson makes the claim that Jesus became Christ at His baptism.

I'm not much for 'warm fuzzy' anyway, but I do appreciate one being direct. I do hope you're serious about examining Johnson's words. I'm baffled at how you cannot see that Johnson is self-contradictory in his "eternally God" statements as they are conjoined with the "emptied His divinity" and "laid aside His divinity." At best they are self-contradictory.

Making one or two ambiguous statements, or even self-contradictory statements would be no big deal. No one is perfect. Yet with Johnsons this is a very consistent thing.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Here's another quote from When Heaven Invades Earth on the very same page as as the "Christ anointing" one above:

Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his [sic] divinity aside as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father: to live life as a man without sin, and then die in the place of mankind for sin. This would be essential in His plan to redeem mankind. The sacrifice that could atone for sin had to be a lamb, (powerless), and had to be spotless, (without sin).

Note that, once again, Johnson doesn't state something like 'He chose not to exercise His divine attributes', the claim is that His divinity was "laid aside." Could I, for example, lay my humanity aside? In any case, this is just one more quote indicating ambiguity at best with regard to Jesus Christ's eternal divinity.

 

[sunlover1]

I've just posted a lengthy comment illustrating how Johnson makes the claim that Jesus became Christ at His baptism.

Thanks, Ill be interested in studying that when I get a chance.
Sun's shining here and the SON is shining brightly today as well.
All the world is celebrating our God today!

I'm not much for 'warm fuzzy' anyway, but I do appreciate one being direct. I do hope you're serious about examining Johnson's words. I'm baffled at how you cannot see that Johnson is self-contradictory in his "eternally God" statements as they are conjoined with the "emptied His divinity" and "laid aside His divinity." At best they are self-contradictory.

Oh QUITE serious.
I'm so very skeptical by nature (of all men) because of past experience,
ESPECIALLY cautious because of being tricked by the enemy in the past.
I know you're baffled lol.
But i can't "see it" like you do.
Try as I might I cant see what you see and
you can't see what I do

Making one or two ambiguous statements, or even self-contradictory statements would be no big deal. No one is perfect. Yet with Johnsons this is a very consistent thing.

I will certainly continue checking this out until I am confident.
MEANWhile I'll try to listen to some of his podcasts
if time allows.

Have a blessed Good Friday celebration.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

As a follow up to my comment above about Johnson's claim that Jesus became the Christ at baptism, here are similar claims in his book Face to Face with God (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2007):

…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him… (p 77).

The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified. This was His quest. Receiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience [“Christ anointing” by the Spirit after water baptism] there could be no title (p 109).

I've added the remarks in brackets for clarity. My point is that this is a consistent teaching by Johnson. But, logically, if Jesus becomes "Christ" at "the anointing", wouldn't any person anointed become Christ, as well, especially since Johnson specifically terms it "Christ anointing"?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Thanks, Ill be interested in studying that when I get a chance.
Sun's shining here and the SON is shining brightly today as well.
All the world is celebrating our God today!



Oh QUITE serious.
I'm so very skeptical by nature (of all men) because of past experience,
ESPECIALLY cautious because of being tricked by the enemy in the past.
I know you're baffled lol.
But i can't "see it" like you do.
Try as I might I cant see what you see and
you can't see what I do


I will certainly continue checking this out until I am confident.
MEANWhile I'll try to listen to some of his podcasts
if time allows.

Have a blessed Good Friday celebration.

Thanks for the well wishes for Good Friday. HE IS RISEN! STILL!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As a follow up to my comment above about Johnson's claim that Jesus became the Christ at baptism, here are similar claims in his book Face to Face with God (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2007):

…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him… (p 77).

The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified. This was His quest. Receiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience [“Christ anointing” by the Spirit after water baptism] there could be no title (p 109).

I've added the remarks in brackets for clarity. My point is that this is a consistent teaching by Johnson. But, logically, if Jesus becomes "Christ" at "the anointing", wouldn't any person anointed become Christ, as well, especially since Johnson specifically terms it "Christ anointing"?

It would seem so.

BTW, welcome to CF and the GT "Dog Pound"



.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

It would seem so.

BTW, welcome to CF and the GT "Dog Pound"



.

Thanks for the welcome!

Now, with Johnson's above words in mind, here's a statement from a book from 1907 that is still in print today, and is well-liked by New Agers / the New Spirituality:

The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos [ED: actually Christos] and means anointed. It is identical with the Hebrew word Messiah. The word Christ, in itself, does not refer to any particular person; every anointed person is christed… (Levi Dowling The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World, © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA, p 6).

Does that not seem eerily similar to what Johnson states with his claim about Jesus becoming Christ at "the anointing" and believers receiving this same "Christ anointing"?

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

LittleLambofJesus,

It seems that somehow, in responding to your comment, I've inherited your reputation and power. Don't know how that happened!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambofJesus,

It seems that somehow, in responding to your comment, I've inherited your reputation and power.
Don't know how that happened!

I am at max reps, so when I rep, it gives you the approx amount of my rep power...
Anywho.....continue on.....


.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

I am at max reps, so when I rep, it gives you the approx amount of my rep power...
Anywho.....continue on.....


.

OK, sounds good to me!

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

sunlover1,

A bit ago I wrote:

While you've at least conceded my points re: John 5, even in that, rather than pursue it to its Biblical ends, thereby seeing the fallacy in Johnson's proof-texting of a portion of John 5:19, you just gloss over it, saying you'll make it the subject of another post. Why not discuss it further here?

To which you replied:

Im sorry, I didn't want to turn THIS thread into another topic.

But, with all due respect, given that the topic is Bill Johnson, and Johnson proof-texted John 5:19 by taking only a small part of the verse, why wouldn’t it be important to discuss the full Biblical context in order to illustrate exactly how Johnson is in error?

Briefly, here’s the portion of John 5:19 Bill Johnson uses – and he uses this quite often:

The Son can do nothing (see first page of “Commission Restored” chapter in WHIE).

Here’s the NKJV:

19 Then Jesus answered and said to them (the Jews), “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

NASB:

9 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

NET Bible:

19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.

The Scriptural point here is that Jesus will not act independently of the Father, but He sees the Father (and no one sees the Father – John 1:18), and even does what He sees the Father doing, thus He's equivalent to God. Is this how Jesus knew to “be about my Father’s business/house” in Luke 2:49? I’d think so, and this was well before His baptism.

Then, as I stated a bit ago, Jesus even does some things that can only be seen as divine actions (contrary to Johnson's claim that He "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man"), which cannot be applied to the Holy Spirit. These include 5:22, 27 (judgment), 5:24-25 (granting eternal life in the then-present). These must have been done of His intrinsic divinity rather than the Spirit, for otherwise, Holy Spirit indwelt Christians should be able to do the same. That IS Johnson's claim - that Christians should be able to achieve all that Jesus did and more. Yet, this claim is false according to Scripture. The "greater works" of John 14:12 do not apply to 'greater signs and wonders', for what could be greater than bringing a man back from physical death to life?:

Greater Works Shall You Do | CrossWise

And absolutely not one of us can claim to “see” the Father (again, John 1:18), let alone do what we see him doing.

 

[simonthezealot]

But, what is this “experience,” this “anointing” and when did it occur? The answer is supplied in Johnson’s next three sentences:

The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.

Johnson’s concluding sentence is absolutely incorrect and a dangerous false teaching. Jesus was the Christ well before baptism. While He was certainly anointed by the Spirit at baptism, He was already Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” does not imply, it is explicit in identifying Him as the one, unique Christ, Messiah.

According to the Greek, the word for anointing is χρῖσμα (Xpisma, or chrisma). While we can, and do, say that Jesus was anointed at baptism, He was the Christ from the virgin birth (or virginal conception) as Luke makes clear. So, while Jesus received the chrisma of the Holy Spirit at baptism, He was the Christos at the virgin birth.

Johnson, on the other hand, is making the claim that Jesus became the Christ at baptism as a result (“experience”) of the anointing.

I've brought this up before with no response, I'm hoping one of the defenders will take a stand on this and explain how it appears biblical to them...

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

I've brought this up before with no response, I'm hoping one of the defenders will take a stand on this and explain how it appears biblical to them...

Did you see my comment earlier to LittleLambofJesus, which included the following quote from a book written in 1907, yet still in print today, which is very popular among New Agers / the New Spirituality?

The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos [ED: actually Christos] and means anointed. It is identical with the Hebrew word Messiah. The word Christ, in itself, does not refer to any particular person; every anointed person is christed… (Levi Dowling The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World, © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA, p 6)

Does that not sound eerily similar to Johnson?

 

[simonthezealot]

Did you see my comment earlier to LittleLambofJesus, which included the following quote from a book written in 1907, yet still in print today, which is very popular among New Agers / the New Spirituality?

The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos [ED: actually Christos] and means anointed. It is identical with the Hebrew word Messiah. The word Christ, in itself, does not refer to any particular person; every anointed person is christed… (Levi Dowling The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World, © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA, p 6)

Does that not sound eerily similar to Johnson?

Right in-line... The same that's taught much through the word of faith strain.

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Right in-line... The same that's taught much through the word of faith strain.

Note the date, 1907, of the book I referenced. E.W. Kenyon, the REAL father of the WoF movement was alive and already influential by around this time. He grew up, and was influenced by New Thought and Christian Science, and I argue that he was influenced, at least indirectly by Theosophy, as well, the latter being especially influential on New Age / New Spirituality teachings of today. These three were all roughly contemporaneous, being influential in the late 1800s to the turn of the century (and later). I'd say Kenyon's Christology was informed by at least one of those, but most likely Theosophy, as it most closely resembles it.

Interesting that Kenyon's first newsletter was titled Reality according to D.R. McConnell's book A Different Gospel (1988 (4th pr. 1991), Hendrickson, Peabody, MA):

It should be pointed out that ‘Reality’ as Kenyon uses it is a term used in New Thought and Christian Science to refer to the spiritual realm and truths that were hidden by the sensations of the physical realm, which were not reality at all, but was considered ‘error,’ the opposite of metaphysical reality. Reality was also the name of Kenyon’s first newsletter (p 55, n 53)

This is a concept known as maya in Buddhism, meaning "illusion." Bill Johnson also uses this term "reality" similarly, both in books and in his somewhat recent sermon/podcast "Thinking from the Throne". Here's one from When Heaven Invades Earth:

…That which is unseen can be realized only through repentance. It was as though He said, ‘If you don’t change the way you perceive things, you’ll live your whole life thinking what you see in the natural is the superior reality… (p 38, first edition).

And here's one from the Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind (© 2005 Bill Johnson, Destiny Image Publishers, Shippensburg, PA; p 44) :

...Repent, then, means to go back to God’s perspective on reality. And in that perspective there is a renewal, a reformation that affects our emotions, and every part of our lives…

This is only two of many quotes of this sort. I've also pointed out how Johnson uses "repentance" in a way that looks quite a lot like Unity, Christian Science, Theosophy, etc. - that is, as meditative/contemplative prayer (TM) rather than asking the Lord to forgive us our sins:

http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2...ology-with-bill-johnson-a-new-age-repentance/

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover1,

A bit ago I wrote:

While you've at least conceded my points re: John 5, even in that, rather than pursue it to its Biblical ends, thereby seeing the fallacy in Johnson's proof-texting of a portion of John 5:19, you just gloss over it, saying you'll make it the subject of another post. Why not discuss it further here?

To which you replied:

Im sorry, I didn't want to turn THIS thread into another topic.

But, with all due respect, given that the topic is Bill Johnson, and Johnson proof-texted John 5:19 by taking only a small part of the verse, why wouldn’t it be important to discuss the full Biblical context in order to illustrate exactly how Johnson is in error?


Briefly, here’s the portion of John 5:19 Bill Johnson uses – and he uses this quite often:

The Son can do nothing (see first page of “Commission Restored” chapter in WHIE).

Here’s the NKJV:

19 Then Jesus answered and said to them (the Jews), “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

NASB:

9 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

NET Bible:

19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.

The Scriptural point here is that Jesus will not act independently of the Father, but He sees the Father (and no one sees the Father – John 1:18), and even does what He sees the Father doing, thus He's equivalent to God. Is this how Jesus knew to “be about my Father’s business/house” in Luke 2:49? I’d think so, and this was well before His baptism.

Then, as I stated a bit ago, Jesus even does some things that can only be seen as divine actions (contrary to Johnson's claim that He "emptied Himself of divinity and became a man"), which cannot be applied to the Holy Spirit. These include 5:22, 27 (judgment), 5:24-25 (granting eternal life in the then-present). These must have been done of His intrinsic divinity rather than the Spirit, for otherwise, Holy Spirit indwelt Christians should be able to do the same. That IS Johnson's claim - that Christians should be able to achieve all that Jesus did and more. Yet, this claim is false according to Scripture. The "greater works" of John 14:12 do not apply to 'greater signs and wonders', for what could be greater than bringing a man back from physical death to life?:

Greater Works Shall You Do | CrossWise

And absolutely not one of us can claim to “see” the Father (again, John 1:18), let alone do what we see him doing.

Actually, I've made a thread for the divinity piece:
The Works Jesus Did, He Did by the Power of the Spirit

 

[sunlover1]

Following are the first two paragraphs in Bill Johnson’s chapter “The Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit” in When Heaven Invades Earth (on page 79 of the 1st edition - Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House/Destiny Image, 2003). I’ve provided the full context, then I’ll go through it step by step to show the error:

Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah. It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.

The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.

The first two sentences are absolutely 100% correct. Christ is not Jesus’ last name, and Christ means “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” It’s the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for Messiah. In the Greek it’s Χριστός (Xpistos, or Christos). It is usually preceded by the definite article (the) to indicate particularity. Jesus is the one and only Christ (Christos). We might even call him Jesus Messiah, or Jesus the Messiah.

But, we run into error in the next sentence:

It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience.

Jesus was identified as the Christ at the virgin birth (Luke 2:11). Is this the “experience” to which Johnson refers? The answer begins in the next two sentences:

It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.

I suppose someone could say that Jesus was only identified as the Christ just after birth, rather than conception and construe Johnson as fine so far. However, most would claim that Jesus WAS sent from heaven to earth with the title of Christ, since He was identified as the Christ in Luke 2. But, what is this “experience,” this “anointing” and when did it occur? The answer is supplied in Johnson’s next three sentences:

The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.

Johnson’s concluding sentence is absolutely incorrect and a dangerous false teaching. Jesus was the Christ well before baptism. While He was certainly anointed by the Spirit at baptism, He was already Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” does not imply, it is explicit in identifying Him as the one, unique Christ, Messiah.

According to the Greek, the word for anointing is χρῖσμα (Xpisma, or chrisma). While we can, and do, say that Jesus was anointed at baptism, He was the Christ from the virgin birth (or virginal conception) as Luke makes clear. So, while Jesus received the chrisma of the Holy Spirit at baptism, He was the Christos at the virgin birth.

Johnson, on the other hand, is making the claim that Jesus became the Christ at baptism as a result (“experience”) of the anointing.

Interesting conclusions.
So again, he's not saying that Jesus is not God
He is just making some interesting comments
and I see you puttting them together in an
interesting way to conclude that Johnsons
saying Jesus wasn't "The messiah" until
Baptism.
I don't see that is what he's saying at all. And I think
I figured out why we aren't seeing the same thing.
It's not what we're looking AT (obviously) it's
what we're looking through.
That being said, I'll wait to see what other much
smarter men than I concluded from his book. Your
commentary wasn't helpful for me. It kind of distracted
me.
Anyhow, like I said, I'm certainly no scholar and with it
being SO ambiguous, I'd rather let others discuss this
one with you

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Interesting conclusions.
So again, he's not saying that Jesus is not God
He is just making some interesting comments
and I see you puttting them together in an
interesting way to conclude that Johnsons
saying Jesus wasn't "The messiah" until
Baptism.
I don't see that is what he's saying at all. And I think
I figured out why we aren't seeing the same thing.
It's not what we're looking AT (obviously) it's
what we're looking through.
That being said, I'll wait to see what other much
smarter men than I concluded from his book. Your
commentary wasn't helpful for me. It kind of distracted
me.
Anyhow, like I said, I'm certainly no scholar and with it
being SO ambiguous, I'd rather let others discuss this
one with you

OK, let's take just Johnson's concluding statement:

The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit

So, what happens when any other human gets "smeared with the Holy Spirit"? Wouldn't we get the same "Christ anointing" as Jesus? That's exactly what Johnson states in Face to Face with God (as I've quoted earlier):

…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him… (p 77).

And:

The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified. This was His quest. Receiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience [“Christ anointing” by the Spirit after water baptism] there could be no title (p 109).

 

[Craig de CrossWise]

Interesting conclusions.
So again, he's not saying that Jesus is not God
He is just making some interesting comments
and I see you puttting them together in an
interesting way to conclude that Johnsons
saying Jesus wasn't "The messiah" until
Baptism.
I don't see that is what he's saying at all. And I think
I figured out why we aren't seeing the same thing.
It's not what we're looking AT (obviously) it's
what we're looking through.
That being said, I'll wait to see what other much
smarter men than I concluded from his book. Your
commentary wasn't helpful for me. It kind of distracted
me.
Anyhow, like I said, I'm certainly no scholar and with it
being SO ambiguous, I'd rather let others discuss this
one with you

OK, so in your own words, according to Johnson's quote, as it is right in the very beginning in full context, when does Jesus become the Messiah? What "experience" brings about His title of Christ/Messiah?