(Mat 1:18 NRSV) Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

(Mat 1:19 NRSV) Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

(Mat 1:20 NRSV) But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

(Mat 1:21 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

(Mat 1:22 NRSV) All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

(Mat 1:23 NRSV) "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

And

(Mat 16:15 NRSV) He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

(Mat 16:16 NRSV) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

(Mat 16:17 NRSV) And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

I thought that in those days a virgin was a woman who did not 'belong' to any man. That word did not necessarily mean the same as chastity does now. A virgin forest, for instance, has some of that meaning of a forest that is not owned by any man.
There was an interesting program on The Spirit of Things on Radio National recently. It was about the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were written around the time that Jesus lived and towards the end of the program the scholar who was being interviewed virtually said that the Jesus of the Gospel was a Pauline creation - and actually at variance with what the historical Jesus might have been like.
The transcript is at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1427956.htm
As texts the Gospels may have been interpreted and understood in different ways over the centuries, and as vynnie pointed out, the original meanings may vary from what is read into the texts now.
Again, that does not really detract from the texts, as long as they are not taken too literally in the same way as science or history is.

BIBLICAL SPIN ? to rope in the masses ? woooooo..... now you have got me going :)

Firstly, and categorically that statement and the ideas propounded by Vynnie.. are outright incorrect. (on Jesus Divinity) Do a google

I’m more concerned about the claim that the New Testament Documents are nothing more than SPIN to ‘rope in the masses’.

. If that was true, then it would pander to the ‘desires’ of the masses.. now THAT... is common sense, like promising them up to 4 wives, showing by example that 9yrs old is not too young,
by offering a share of ‘war booty’- virgins in paradise...etc

I mean, seriously, who would be attracted to this:

Luke 14
25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Kinda confronting to the ‘me’ generation I think.

Note..

1/ LARGE CROWDS were following Him.. (masses)

2/ Turning to them..... he says... (see above)

Conclusion ? err.. spin to suck in the masses... yeah right ! Bear in mind, ‘carry one’s own cross’ was far more meaningful to them than to us, we have never seen revolutionaries on crosses lining both sides of Maroondah highway from the CBD to Ringwood..like they would have then.

Now.. Xena.. and Vynnie.. if you’re going to make sweeeping statements about ‘church and spin’ at least ensure it has at least SOME connection to the foundation documents.

Check out John 6

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

66 ...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Mark 8
34Then he called the CROWD to him along with his disciples and said:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...”

ROWDY Pauls letters were written B4 the gospels, you can explain the ABSENCE of Pauline Theological expressions in the Gospels ?

Sells, I reiterate: Christian Church doctrines arose out of ignorance of Jewish modes of thought and expression.

BOAZ_David, I never used the term ‘biblical spin’.

THE USE OF THE TERM "VIRGIN" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
Matthew was indeed quoting Isaiah 7:14 and if the context of that passage is studied it will demonstrate that the birth to come was to occur in Isaiah’s own lifetime. (Matthew presented the life of Jesus as a microcosm of the history of Israel, hence his use of the passage from Isaiah is purely allegorical.)

It has been known to Church fathers and scholars (e.g. Eusebius, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) for at least 1700 years that the ‘young woman’ (almah) of Isaiah 7:14 had been incorrectly translated into Greek as ‘virgin’.

It was also attested by a chain of church fathers that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew and that he used the term ‘young woman’. To quote the historian Gibbon “…this Hebrew gospel is most unaccountably lost”.

THE USE OF THE TERM "HOLY SPIRIT" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
The Old Testament writers regarded the Holy Spirit as the agent of every human birth.

To give just one example: from the Old Testament Book of Job comes “The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life”.

Joseph was simply told that Mary’s pregnancy was in accordance with God’s plan for salvation.

The Hebrew name ‘Immanuel’ is here given its literal meaning – ‘with us god’ Many Hebrew names had similar meanings e.g. ‘Elihu’ one of Job’s friends whose name means ‘god himself’.

THE USE OF THE TERM "MESSIAH" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
It is incontestable that the NT authors regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the longed-for Messiah but that had nothing to do with the manner of his procreation. Why they mentioned his birth at all was to demonstrate that he was entitled to sit upon the throne of David (prevailing opinion was that the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David)

Man does not become godlike as he rises by his own efforts above his human frailty. Man cannot by any means he might employ apart from God rise to the nature of God. The spirit and nature of God comes to us where we are in our frailty. God rescues us in our human frailty and assures us we are his loved sons. It is the implantation of His divine seed [to use the Apostle John's term] by the Spirit of God that motivates us to live godly lives. It is our recognition we by our selves have failed and only in God do we have a unique place in the history of man and can fulfil that unique place in the purpose of God.

We live in a world that has been intelligently designed, and not in a progression of mutated accidents. There is but one God uniting the whole happening of the universe, not many accidental forces as atheistic evolution would have us believe. The latest scientific thought has debunked random mutation and replaced it with intelligent design. There is a Designer Creator and he wants to relate to our purpose and role in His Creation.

Christianity is not knowledge of a historical Jesus; i.e. you read a book and understood its message. No it is focused in relationships with God, others within Church, neighbours, brothers, wife, and children, State. Knowing the history of Jesus does not make one a follower of Jesus. Devotion to God in the heart expressed by the living of our lives through full reconciliation and humility to the Spirit of Christ is Christianity. Christianity is action based not the intellectual accumulation of ideas.

With regard to Jesus conception it was the council of Priests including Zacharias [father of John the Baptist} who searched a precedent for Marys life dedication to Temple. She could not stay at Temple because her menstruation was against temple law. The example given for her role was found in Isaiah, so Mary was to fulfil that by giving birth to a son in the lineage of David, who would be rejected, killed for the sins of the Nation [Isa 53]. Isaiah set the role Jesus was to fulfil, Jesus clearly understood that purpose. His natural father is unknown among sperm donations from several youth called up from the lineage of David. The messenger given the encounter to artificially impregnate Mary when recalled following her pubity was known to her from the Temple staff. Gabriel means the messenger appointed to protect and retain the throne appointed of God in Israel.

The original child mentioned in Isaiah didn't fulfil the role as Almighty God to the nation or die rejected for the sins of the people. That child is obscure of no note. Compare the scenes set by the Minor Prophets that influenced the Essenes that had close contact with John's father Zacharias. Note it was to the caves of the Essenes that Elizabeth fled with baby John after the death of her husband Zacharias in the Temple court by Herod’s henchmen after Herod heard of his intent to raise a son that was to assume power in Judah. Jesus from his conception was known as the child born to be King. Mary had lived under the schooling of the Temple from age three and had cared for the sacrificial doves, so was known to the Temple shepherds who initially feared the messenger bearing tidings of the birth of the child - Jesus.

Jesus had a purpose to be King in Judah but relinquished that for the savant role of Isaiah. Of the whole Messianic scene, Zacharias was murdered with a dagger, John was beheaded from prison, and Jesus was crucified for blasphemy.