Then there are the numerous Old Testament prophecies that Jesus was supposed to have fulfilled. According to facts laid out here it seems the author of the Gospel of Matthew was a little too eager to prove the divinity of Jesus.
Actually, what the writer of Matthew's gospel was "a little too eager to prove" is the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Whether or not the Jews expected their messiah to be divine is another matter altogether. The idea of a divine human savior has its origins in Greek and Egyptian religious thought.
Back to Matthew's gospel: The original audience for this book were Jewish converts to Christianity. The gospel writer wanted to show his faith community that Jesus was the new Moses who had founded a new covenant with the people of God. To depict Jesus as the new Moses, the gospel writer retold the story of the slaughter of male children under Pharoah during Moses' time as occurring at the time of Jesus' birth, with the event subsequently leading to the holy family's flight into Egyptian exile. Within the culture and era in which he was writing, retelling the slaughter of innocents story in relation to Jesus' birth was a perfectly acceptible literary device.
The purpose of this element in Matthew's infancy narrative was to answer the theological question, "Who is Jesus for this faith community?" The idea that the writer intended to give his audience a factual, historic account of Jesus' birth is a modern expectation that has been super-imposed on an ancient literary form, with no appreciation for the literary conventions of a gospel. It's kind of like someone reading an advertisement for laundry detergent 2,000 years from now as though the advertiser intended the text to be an objective description of a product, going so far to interpret claims like "Whiter than snow" and "Bright as the sun" as literal statements of fact.
I get particularly worked up on this subject because I truly love scripture, both as a human artifact (the way some people love Shakespearian theater) and as the inspired word of God that speaks to my soul. I love scripture so much that I've spent the better part of my adult life studying it and allowing myself to be challenged to reflect more deeply about what it is I think I know versus what is widely known by people who are much more learned than I am in ancient Biblical languages, cultures, and history. I get very tired of seeing scripture used as though it were a supernatural oracle, with no respect whatsoever for its literary forms, historic and cultural contexts, or the humanity of the people who wrote, edited, translated, and preserved it. To me, that approach to scripture turns the sacred texts into an idol that's little more than an image of the reader's ignorance and fear. I also get very tired of sceptics and nonbelievers citing textual inconsistencies and historic contradictions as though that proves something meaningful about a lack of divine inspiration.