Concieved by the Holy Ghost

There are so many elements of the christian stories as narrated in the New Testament that I have a great problem with, but there is one in particular that is outright contradictory. The story of Mary and Joseph the parents of Jesus otherwise referred to as the doctrine of the virgin birth which by Jewish laws and traditions does not make any sense at all. The N.T. makes reference many times to the mosaic laws making it quite obvious that at the time of the alleged birth of Jesus those laws were still practiced and binding amongst the Jewish community. Deuteronomy 22:23,24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. According to this text Mary would have faced the grave danger of being accused of adultery and would be subject to death by stoning.

Matthew tries very hard to explain how Joseph was able to accept that although he did not have sexual intercourse with his wife she was pregnant with child in Matthew 1:18-23 by stating that the angel of the Lord had visited Joseph in a dream and told him that that child is of the Holy Ghost. So according to the story Matthew accepted this dream as an actual reality and accepted Mary as his wife. The N.T. is full of all these little workarounds to compensate for discrepancies regarding the mosaic laws and also regarding Hebrew traditions. A careful reading of these types of contradictions only raises my suspicions even more regarding the authenticity of the life and times of Jesus.

To me it just seems like someone or in this case the various authors involved in the composition of the synoptic gospels were working very hard to try and fix the many discrepancies that are present in the N.T. I have also heard an argument that states that when the bible refers to Mary as a virgin that the word virgin in the original Hebrew could also be translated as young woman. Here is an excerpt on this matter from wikipedia: 'The Gospel of Matthew presents the virgin birth of Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew adapts to his purpose.[11]Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman. Since `almah is the word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, some commentators have believed it at least possible that Isaiah had in mind only a normal conception by a young mother and that Matthew applied this text of Scripture to the birth of the one he believed to be Messiah, as John seems to have applied to his death another text of Scripture that in its original context referred to the Passover lamb.[12] Others believe that Isaiah was directly prophesying the future virgin birth of the Messiah.'

That being said; if it were in fact true then Mary was not a virgin in the traditional sense but rather as used in the Hebrew text from which it was stolen she was just a young woman. But if any one who calls themselves a Christian were to accept this explanation it would make the so called virgin birth doctrine null and void. Not only that but it would clearly contradict the meaning that the author of the gospel of Matthew wanted it to mean. Matthew 1:18 clearly said that she was found with child before her and Joseph had come together ( had sexual intercourse), and it would also mean that good old Matthew (who might not have even authored the book using his name) plagiarized and intentionally reinterpreted its meaning to suit his purposes. The main purpose was to espouse the doctrine of the virgin birth with the intent to mislead those who bought into his lies. This is one of many explanations for which I think that the Jews did not accept Jesus. Stating in any way that he was the literal son of God or even God in the flesh would have been outright blasphemous.