The way I stumbled across this site was of course via Google.
I didn't detect it's bias although someone from the Catholoic side may very well.
There are of course strong points of view on this topic that Jews have discussed in their own literature and in Hebrew, some of which go back a thousand years, but I have not found much on the Web.
I know that if I post something from a Jewish site, it will attract "debunkers" who debunk solely because it's from a Jewish source but will not give the contents the time of day.
I personally have not had a problem with this issue, but I do know that some 200 years ago there were many debates foistered on the Jews regading this very topic.
I would love to get my hands on some of those manuscripts, but can't.
These debates took place in Poland and Russia. I'm sure but have no proof, that the Church would have them filed away somewhere.
I assume that the debates did not fare too well for the Church because if they did, they would be on full show and available everywhere.
The Churches' silence, particularly many years ago when they weilded enormous power and racial/libel laws weren't even dreamt of, strengthens my suspicions that they have something to hide.
Remember, the Church was opposed in these debates by the brightest minds that Jews had at their disposal.
We are aware that after some of these debates, the Jews participating were put to death or just disappeared. Not a good sign if one felt that these debates were won by the Church.
Somehow I think we will never know the truth.
Incidentally for the record, I have never felt that Jews were responsible for the death of the "son of god". As you would be well aware, we do not subscribe to that doctrine.
One interesting article I did see from an old book, was that one of the questions posed to the bishop at the centre of one of those infamous debates was, that if Jesus was the son of god, how could he suscribe to being from the house of David when everyone knows that the only way a Jew could suscribe to being from any "house" or tribe was only, I stress only from the paternal lineage.
Therefore even if Joseph stemmed from the house of David, by claiming that it was a "virgin birth" and that god was his father, that creates an irreconcilable problem.
It's one or the other.
Then the article went on, that if god gave the 10 commandments, and adultery was forbidden, the mere fact that Mary was betrothed in the Jewish law prevalent at that time, a betrothed woman required a divorce before she could enter into a relationship with another man.
One did not have to be married to require a Get (Jewish divorce). A betrothed person had to have one as well, otherwise the status of the offspring would be considered a "mamzer" which means illegitamate, but carries a stigma within the Jewish definition as opposed to the popular version suscribed to today.
Basically a mamzer can only marry another mamzer and has other restrictions. Very severe label in those days.
So why would a god who has forbidden adultery, break his own law and even have a "spiritual relationship with a betrothed woman? After all he should set the example. Wouldn't look good if a Chief Justice of the Hight Court of Australia broke one of the 10 highest laws in the land, now would it?
And if god wanted to make sure that the miracle of the birth of Christ was beyond dispute why not have a tree give birth, something over the top, some event that no one could dispute? Or at least with an unbetrothed woman.
Jews got into alot of trouble (deadly trouble) saying what I've just posted.
One priest I was chatting with said possibly the lineage was traced through Mary. Any self respecting authority on Jews, would know that is sheer nonsence. The only linkage with the maternal side, is the religion itself. If ones' mother is Jewish then the child is. That's it, pure and simple.
Reform Jews are trying to braek that cardinal rule today but are not having much sucess. They believe that either parent being Jewish would make the offspring Jews.
Hitler was the only one who agreed with them.
So we have a little dilemna at a theological level.
