Church scholars have assiduously cultivated the impression that the manuscripts upon which the New Testament is based claim that Jesus was born of a 'virgin'.
They say no such thing. Far from being taught as a 'truth necessary for salvation', the doctrine of 'virgin birth' should be taught as a classic in misrepresentation and disinformation.
Because of the discovery of a complete copy of Isaiah amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, theologians are now forced to admit publicly what their forbears knew at least 1800 years ago:
no Israelite prophet predicted a 'virgin birth'
none of the contemporaries of Jesus had ever heard of 'virgin birth'
it was never preached by any of his disciples
Matthew, for a compelling reason that had nothing to do with 'virgin birth', recorded that Jesus was not the son of Joseph
Luke, for the same compelling reason, recorded the name of the biological father of Jesus*
Luke also made clear that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, thereby ruling out any possibility that he intended his account to be read as a record of virgin birth.
Two genealogies of Jesus are recorded. There is no conflict between the two. One is the genealogy of his supposed father, the other is the genealogy of his biological father. Confusion was introduced only by the later imposition of the doctrine of 'virgin-birth'.
Ever since Ignatius introduced the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin - between 110-117 AD - those charged with the grave responsibility of speaking in his name have succeeded only in negating the purpose of his life and death.
*This point will be dealt with exhaustively in the forthcoming series entitled 'Luke's Testimony'.
Coming up: Matthew's Testimony : Part 2