1: Already married. Described as a young woman. A child was born. "Virgin" not mentioned until the mistranslation. To accept the possibility you suggest, you would have to believe the self-evidently impossible, ie: have "faith".
2: I don't assume the presence of an omniscient being at all. Higher knowledge than that possessed at the time would be that the earth is spherical, however – they thought the earth was flat, yet it would still have been impossible to see Rome – and they knew it existed. Unless the whole thing was a drug-induced hallucination, which hardly gives it any more credence than the rambling of some addled self-deluder. Also, if the only presences were "the Devil" and the alleged Jesus, who was there to report it?
3: There is no record in all of the Roman texts for instance, to suggest that the entire Jewish nation was ordered to remove itself to individual places of birth for the purposes of taxation,a huge event that would not be unrecorded – and a ludicrous idea in the first place. Also, there are extant records of other uprisings and disturbances. None of the alleged Nazarene and his followers, however. Hardly an efficient censorship if you are trying to misrepresent the feelings of the time.
4: Oh, of course. Silly me.
5: The reason is that the authors lived in a completely different eras than the one which they are reporting, from stories handed down by word of mouth over 70 years in one case. More in the others. Word of mouth is the most innaccurate method of communication, subject to change over time like no other. They might as well have been describing something that began as a story-make-up game one evening in the local garrison by bored roman soldiers living in a land of what they regarded as a bunch of nutcases anyway, what with the popularity of various mendicants and "prophets" all over the place… Seventy years later, it's morphed into a series of real events.
