I will address the virgin birth one more time concering it’s use in the gospels of Matt and Luke. The point of that story was to show Jesus was not born of a ‘man’ – but Mary was impreganted by God alone. The lineage backs this up, the actual story about Jesus’ birth says this outright, and the passage they use from Isaiah also seems to point to this. In the writer’s mind there is no mistake about what is being said here concerning ‘virgin’. Some passages.
“Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born...” (Matt 1:16a)
“before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” (Matt 1:18b)
“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON...” (Matt 1:23)
Matthews version seems pretty clear. Mary gets a mention in the genealogy because she bore Jesus, was impreganted by the Holy Spirit (not via Joseph), and fulfilled the passage in Isaiah 7:14.
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus” (Luke 1:31)
“Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”” (Luke 1:34)
“The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)
Now Luke does not do the whole ‘quoting’ scripture thing (by time of his composition it was obvious already – he needed defend nothing). However, he makes the exact same point about Mary: (a) Virgin to conceive son (b) impreganted by the Holy Spirit (or God) (c) he will be a literal version of the ‘son of God’.
Luke’s point is as obvious as Matthew’s for the use of the ‘virgin birth’ – not to ‘fulfill’ in as much as this is to determine what ‘son of God’ means.
And they basically provide me with more than an enough reason to not accept anything being said in those stories – since it is based on a literal interpretation of ‘alma’ from Isaiah 7:14 – which is in ‘error’. Luke also makes a leap after building on this ‘virgin’ idea about how it relates to ‘son of God’…casting more than enough doubt on the validity of that term.
It’s kind of like building an actual building on a flawed blueprint scheme that has an error in it’s construction plan (bad math or something in the measurements). Who builds their house on such things when they know the error will eventually flatten it?