Let us conclude with a concise summary of some puzzles and questions about Jesus’s supposed immaculate conception and virgin birth.

• The gospels show that Christ himself did not claim to have a miraculous birth. He did not once allude to it, though as the principal evidence of his divinity, as Christians claim, he would have done so.
• His paternal genealogy, as made out by Matthew and Luke, completely confounds his Virgin Birth. They both trace his lineage through Joseph, which they could only do if Joseph was his father.
• His own disciple, Philip, declared him to be the son of Joseph, and several texts show that it was the original belief.
• The story of the Virgin Birth rests on the slender foundations of an angel and a dream. Mary got it by an angel, and Joseph by a dream, and thereby we have the whole of the story of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
• However, we have neither Joseph’s nor Mary’s report of these things, but only Matthew and Luke’s. We do not know that either of them ever saw or spoke with Joseph or Mary on the subject.
• If Christ were a miraculously born god, would his mother have reproved him for misconduct when she found him in the temple, as she, if no one else, must have known his nature?
• If Mary conceived miraculously, why was it kept so long from Joseph? Did the concubine of God intend to deceive her lawful husband? An angel had to be sent from heaven to let him into the secret.
• Why did not God inform Joseph by “inspiration” instead of using the round about way of sending an angel to do it?
• “Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost”, but as we are told nothing more about the circumstances, does it not leave us suspicious?
• Since it all seems to have been based on dreams, was carried on through dreams, and has no better foundation than dreams, why should we give it better credit than similar stories found in heathen mythology? Or is it that Christianity is just a dreamy religion?
• In an educated and scientific age, should we accept reports of the birth of a God based on no better a foundation than dreams, angels and the legends of oriental mythology? In particular, can any scientist entertain the idea of infinite beings, themselves mere conjecture, actually impregnating human females?
• Essene belief was that sexual intercourse was sinful, procreation was impure and human children were born thus contaminated. Human beings were imperfect and any god sent into the world as a saviour had to avoid such contamination. The solution was that incarnate gods entered the world through human virgins to avoid the impurity and the slander that the saviour might have arisen in more normal ways if the mother were not a virgin. Can anyone unbiased deny that such thinking is the source of the origin of the story of Christ’s Virgin Birth?
• If Christ had to come into the world avoiding the impurity of human conception and birth, why did he not descend directly from heaven in person? If he can descend on the clouds at his—still awaited—second advent, why could he not do the same at his first advent, thereby pre-empting reasons for doubt and saving far more of fallen humanity?
• Could anyone, free of religious guilt and indoctrination, presented with these stories as the truth today, willingly and joyfully accept them as proof that someone was a god? Or would they consider them to be fraudulent inventions, intended to gull the credulous?

There are so many incongruities in divine revelation that it becomes knavery to dismiss them as God’s mysterious ways, as Christians and Jews do. Yet both agree that God gave us reason. So, why doesn’t He expect us to use it when He chooses to reveal something to us? Why are Christians so sure that they have not been hoodwinked by the Devil posing as God? As a supernatural theory of the events of the world, it makes more sense than the Christian idea.