Scriptures That Prove The Trinity

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

There seems to be alot of confusion among the muslims about our beleif in the Trinity and the Divinty of Christ. They claim the Bible doesnt directly point these out which is untrue and I will prove it with direct quotes from The Holy Bible, New and Old Testaments. Anybody else who wants to contribute scripture quotes that prove these two doctrines please feel free. But remember we are only going to use scripture here to refute the claim that the Bible doesnt teach these two doctrines.


[b][size="4"]TRINITY[/size][/b]

[u]Genesis Chapter 1 Verses 26-27[/u]

26 And he said: Let us make man to [b]our [/b]image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 [b]And God created man to his own image[/b]: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

[color="#FF0000"]"Let us make man to our image"... God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity.[/color]


[u]1John 5:7[/u]

"And there are [b]three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[/b]. And these [b]three[/b] are [b]one[/b]."



[b][size="4"]Divinity of Christ[/size][/b]


[u]Gospel of John 20:27-31[/u]

27 Then he saith to Thomas: "Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: "[b]My Lord, and my God[/b]." 29 Jesus saith to him: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, [b]thou hast believed[/b]: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." 30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.


[u]Gospel of John 1:1-5[/u]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, [b]and the Word was God[/b]. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.



There are many more but I will be nice and let others participate(code language for "Im lazy")

Edited December 13, 2009 by sacredheartandbloodofjesus

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[b][size="4"]Divinity of Christ[/size][/b]

Old and New testaments

Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.

Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did.

John 10:30 - Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus' statement in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I," cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus' statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.

2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.
Isaiah 9:6 - the child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


The Bible couldnt be any more clearer.

[Pomak]

[quote]The Bible couldnt be any more clearer.[/quote]

And who says those passages must be read literally?
What methodology do you follow as to why some verses must be literal while others are metaphorical.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Pomak' date='13 December 2009 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1260765538' post='2020080']
And who says those passages must be read literally?
What methodology do you follow as to why some verses must be literal while others are metaphorical.
[/quote]

The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Pomak' date='13 December 2009 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1260765538' post='2020080']
And who says those passages must be read literally?
What methodology do you follow as to why some verses must be literal while others are metaphorical.
[/quote]

That question is exactly why there's thousands of protestant groups and Rex's answer is why there is only one Catholic Church

[Servus_Mariae]

True. The Sacred Scriptures are a collection of works contained in what we call the "canon". This canon of Scripture was compiled by the authority of the Catholic Church and the extent of their authority was proclaimed by the same Church. So...it is only most appropriate that this same Church interpret these texts.

[Antigonos]

There is more than one way to interpret Scripture. For example, the Jews have a saying that there are "70 faces to the Torah".

Re Genesis 1: A commentary called the Targum Yonatan paraphrases the verse as follows: "And God said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of Creation, 'Let us make Man'." The Midrash says: "When Moses came to this verse [let us make] which is in the plural and implies, Heaven forbid, that there is more than one Creator, he said, 'Sovereign of the Universe, why do You furnish a pretext for the heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities?' 'Write!' God declared, 'Whoever wishes to err, will err...instead let them learn that when the Creator, Who created all, came to create Man, He consulted with his ministering angels'"

It's worth noting that the word frequently used for God in the Torah [one of several, each implying a certain attribute] is plural [Elohim; El is the singular] and therefore verbs, adjectives, etc. will take the plural form. The plural denotes intensity: the God of Gods, as it were, not plurality. It's the "royal We", so to speak.

Exodus: God has a number of names. In Hebrew, there is no present tense, which makes all translations of His Name as "I AM" obviously wrong. In fact, the translators of the Torah got quite a few of the names wrong. Jehovah, for example, is composed of the vowels for "Adonai" with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton [YHYH] which is NEVER, EVER pronounced by an observant Jew. A more correct translation of that verse would be "I am that which has always been and always will be" which implies "and am now". God further tells Moses that He now wants the Children of Israel to know him as "Almighty God" [El Shaddai] to emphasize His omnipotence, and tells Moses that this is a new name. It doesn't mean there is more than one God.

As for Isaiah, that is one of most mistranslated verses in the entire Bible. The Hebrew [which is the original] does NOT say "virgin" [betulah], but rather "young woman of marriageable age" [alemah]. The various Hebrew words [naarah, bogeret, alemah] for a girl who has begun to menstruate, or is on the verge of doing so, have precise legal meanings. Jesus' companions only knew the Greek Septuagint translation, obviously, since Greek does not make distinctions of this sort and was forced to use a word which means virgin. Then the Gospel writers had to tie themselves into knots to produce a virgin birth for Jesus, which was completely unnecessary. Mary was simply a girl who had begun to menstruate, and was therefore permitted to be married. (There are two parts to a Jewish marriage, betrothal and actual marriage. A girl of more than 12 years and 1 day old could be betrothed, but until she menstruated, she could not be married. Nowadays, the two ceremonies [eruvin and kiddushin] are conducted at the same time.)


The Hebrew Mashiach, which means one who is anointed with the oil of kingship, and ALL the various verses from the Old Testament [Jews obviously do not accept the New Testament as being of any authority at all] which claim to foretell the coming of a descendant who WILL RESTORE THE DAVIDIC MONARCHY, are just that, nothing more. The Christian Messiah is not only pagan in concept, having more to do with "mystery" religions like Mithraism, it is entirely alien to Jewish thought of the time. Only in the Christian era has the Mashiach, who is still only a mortal human, btw, been given the job of announcing the approaching "end time". In kabbalistic thought, which was heavily influenced by medieval Christian mysticism, there are actually two messiahs, mashiach ben yosef, and mashiach ben david, who will appear in future. Anyone interested in this is referred to the books by the greatest modern expert on Jewish mysticism, Gershom Sholem.

While the Magisterium of the Church may claim to be the defining authority on Catholic interpretation of the Bible, it must be remembered that the Church has always had a vested interest in differing from the classical Jewish authorities who interpreted the Torah and Tanach [the Old Testament]. The Church, after all, was rejecting the Jewish way of life and the Jewish understanding of what God is, and what God cannot be.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1260775616' post='2020127']
Then the Gospel writers had to tie themselves into knots to produce a virgin birth for Jesus[/quote]
The evangelists were merely recording what actually happened.

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1260775897' post='2020132']
The evangelists were merely recording what actually happened.
[/quote]


Absolutely not. [1] They weren't present at any gynecologic examination which proved that Mary was indeed a virgin when she got pregnant, and [2] may not even have been alive then. The Gospels were written about 40 years after Jesus' death. It was all hearsay.

But more to the point, Mary did not have to be a virgin to fulfill any of the prophecies that related to the person who was to be the mother of the messiah. "Virgin" is a mistranslation of "alemah".

[Servus_Mariae]

So...essentially because the Gospels were written 40 years after Christ, and nobody examined Mary...it's all objectilvey false?

Just a heads up chief, you are declaring this along with all of the other historical critical junkies well after the writings of the Apostles...so...you know, you are wrong by virtue of this fact.

[Apotheoun]

[b]VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IS BIOLOGICAL FACT[/b]
Pope John Paul II

The Gospel accounts clearly teach that Jesus’ conception was the work of the Holy Spirit and not just a theological expression of his divine sonship

[i]The virginity of Mary and Jesus' virginal conception were the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 July. This truth of faith is set forth in the Gospels and confirmed by subsequent tradition. "The uniform Gospel witness testifies how faith in the virginal conception of Jesus was firmly rooted in various milieux of the early Church", the Pope said. Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 26th in the series on the Blessed Virgin Mary and was given in Italian.[/i]

1. The Church has constantly held that Mary's virginity is a truth of faith, as she has received and reflected on the witness of the Gospels of Luke, of Matthew and probably also of John.

In the episode of the Annunciation, the Evangelist Luke calls Mary a "virgin", referring both to her intention to persevere in virginity, as well as to the divine plan which reconciles this intention with her miraculous motherhood. The affirmation of the virginal conception, due to the action of the Holy Spirit, excludes every hypothesis of natural parthenogenesis and rejects the attempts to explain Luke's account as the development of a Jewish theme or as the derivation of a pagan mythological legend.

The structure of the Lucan text (cf. Lk 1:26-38; 2:19, 51) resists any reductive interpretation. Its coherence does not validly support any mutilation of the terms or expressions which affirm the virginal conception brought about by the Holy Spirit.

2. The Evangelist Matthew, reporting the angel's announcement to Joseph, affirms like Luke that the conception was "the work of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20) and excluded marital relations.

Furthermore, Jesus' virginal conception is communicated to Joseph at a later time: for him it is not a question of being invited to give his assent prior to the conception of Mary's Son, the fruit of the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit and the co-operation of the mother alone. He is merely asked to accept freely his role as the Virgin's husband and his paternal mission with regard to the child.

Matthew presents the virginal origins of Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. "'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means, God with us)" (Mt 1:23; cf. Is 7: 14). In this way Matthew leads us to conclude that the virginal conception was the object of reflection in the first Christian community, which understood its conformity to the divine plan of salvation and its connection with the identity of Jesus, "God with us".

[b]Early Church firmly believed in virginal conception[/b]

3. Unlike Luke and Matthew, Mark's Gospel does not mention Jesus' conception and birth; nonetheless it is worth noting that Mark never mentions Joseph, Mary's husband. Jesus is called "the son of Mary" by the people of Nazareth or in another context, "the Son of God" several times (3:11; 5:7; cf. 1:11; 9:7; 14:61-62; 15:39). These facts are in harmony with belief in the mystery of his virginal conception. This truth, according to a recent exegetical discovery, would be explicitly contained in verse 13 of the Prologue of John's Gospel, which some ancient authoritative authors (for example, Irenaeus and Tertullian) present, not in the usual plural form, but in the singular: "He, who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". This version in the singular would make the Johannine Prologue one of the major attestations of Jesus' virginal conception, placed in the context of the mystery of the Incarnation.

Paul's paradoxical affirmation: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman ... so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5), paves the way to the question about this Son's personhood, and thus about his virginal birth.

The uniform Gospel witness testifies how faith in the virginal conception of Jesus was firmly rooted in various milieux of the early Church. This deprives of any foundation several recent interpretations which understand the virginal conception not in a physical or biological sense, but only as symbolic or metaphorical: it would designate Jesus as God's gift to humanity. The same can be said for the opinion advanced by others, that the account of the virginal conception would instead be a [i]theologoumenon[/i], that is, a way of expressing a theological doctrine, that of Jesus' divine sonship, or would be a mythological portrayal of him.

As we have seen, the Gospels contain the explicit affirmation of a virginal conception of the biological order, brought about by the Holy Spirit. The Church made this truth her own, beginning with the very first formulations of the faith (cf. [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], n. 496).

4. The faith expressed in the Gospels is confirmed without interruption in later tradition. The formulas of faith of the first Christian writers presuppose the assertion of the virginal birth: Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are in agreement with Ignatius of Antioch, who proclaims Jesus "truly born of a virgin" ([i]Smyrn[/i]. 1, 2). These authors mean a real, historical virginal conception of Jesus and are far from affirming a virginity that is only moral or a vague gift of grace manifested in the child's birth.

The solemn definitions of faith by the Ecumenical Councils and the papal Magisterium, which follow the first brief formulas of faith, are in perfect harmony with this truth. The Council of Chalcedon (451), in its profession of faith, carefully phrased and with its infallibly defined content, affirms that Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity in these last days, for us and for our salvation, by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (DS 301). In the same way the Third Council of Constantinople (681) proclaimed that Jesus Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity, by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, she who is properly and in all truth the Mother of God" (DS 555). Other Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II, Lateran IV and Lyons II) declared Mary "ever-virgin", stressing her perpetual virginity (DS 423, 801, 852). These affirmations were taken up by the Second Vatican Council, which highlighted the fact that Mary "through her faith and obedience ... gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" ([i]Lumen gentium[/i], n. 63).

In addition to the conciliar definitions, there are the definitions of the papal Magisterium concerning the Immaculate Conception of the "Blessed Virgin Mary" (DS 2803) and the Assumption of the "Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mother of God" (DS 3903).

[b]Mary's holiness and virginity are closely linked[/b]

5. Although the definitions of the Magisterium, except for those of the Lateran Council of 649, desired by Pope Martin I, do not explain the meaning of the term "virgin", it is clear that this term is used in its customary sense: the voluntary abstention from sexual acts and the preservation of bodily integrity. However, physical integrity is considered essential to the truth of faith of Jesus' virginal conception (cf. [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], n. 496).

The description of Mary as "Holy Ever-Virgin, Immaculate" draws attention to the connection between holiness and virginity. Mary wanted a virginal life, because she was motivated by the desire to give her whole heart to God.

The expression used in the definition of the Assumption, "the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mother of God", also implies the connection between Mary's virginity and her motherhood: two prerogatives miraculously combined in the conception of Jesus, true God and true man. Thus Mary's virginity is intimately linked to her divine motherhood and perfect holiness.


Taken from: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM26.HTM"]EWTN Documents[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 05:54 AM' timestamp='1260795264' post='2020201']
But more to the point, Mary did not have to be a virgin to fulfill any of the prophecies that related to the person who was to be the mother of the messiah. "Virgin" is a mistranslation of "alemah".
[/quote]
The LXX translation of [i]almah[/i] as παρθένος is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the term in Greek, since [i]almah[/i] means a young woman of marriageable age.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 December 2009 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1260797402' post='2020214']
[b]VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IS BIOLOGICAL FACT[/b]
Pope John Paul II

The Gospel accounts clearly teach that Jesus' conception was the work of the Holy Spirit and not just a theological expression of his divine sonship

[i]The virginity of Mary and Jesus' virginal conception were the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 July. This truth of faith is set forth in the Gospels and confirmed by subsequent tradition. "The uniform Gospel witness testifies how faith in the virginal conception of Jesus was firmly rooted in various milieux of the early Church", the Pope said. Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 26th in the series on the Blessed Virgin Mary and was given in Italian.[/i]

1. The Church has constantly held that Mary's virginity is a truth of faith, as she has received and reflected on the witness of the Gospels of Luke, of Matthew and probably also of John.

In the episode of the Annunciation, the Evangelist Luke calls Mary a "virgin", referring both to her intention to persevere in virginity, as well as to the divine plan which reconciles this intention with her miraculous motherhood. The affirmation of the virginal conception, due to the action of the Holy Spirit, excludes every hypothesis of natural parthenogenesis and rejects the attempts to explain Luke's account as the development of a Jewish theme or as the derivation of a pagan mythological legend.

The structure of the Lucan text (cf. Lk 1:26-38; 2:19, 51) resists any reductive interpretation. Its coherence does not validly support any mutilation of the terms or expressions which affirm the virginal conception brought about by the Holy Spirit.

2. The Evangelist Matthew, reporting the angel's announcement to Joseph, affirms like Luke that the conception was "the work of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20) and excluded marital relations.

Furthermore, Jesus' virginal conception is communicated to Joseph at a later time: for him it is not a question of being invited to give his assent prior to the conception of Mary's Son, the fruit of the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit and the co-operation of the mother alone. He is merely asked to accept freely his role as the Virgin's husband and his paternal mission with regard to the child.

Matthew presents the virginal origins of Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. "'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means, God with us)" (Mt 1:23; cf. Is 7: 14). In this way Matthew leads us to conclude that the virginal conception was the object of reflection in the first Christian community, which understood its conformity to the divine plan of salvation and its connection with the identity of Jesus, "God with us".

[b]Early Church firmly believed in virginal conception[/b]

3. Unlike Luke and Matthew, Mark's Gospel does not mention Jesus' conception and birth; nonetheless it is worth noting that Mark never mentions Joseph, Mary's husband. Jesus is called "the son of Mary" by the people of Nazareth or in another context, "the Son of God" several times (3:11; 5:7; cf. 1:11; 9:7; 14:61-62; 15:39). These facts are in harmony with belief in the mystery of his virginal conception. This truth, according to a recent exegetical discovery, would be explicitly contained in verse 13 of the Prologue of John's Gospel, which some ancient authoritative authors (for example, Irenaeus and Tertullian) present, not in the usual plural form, but in the singular: "He, who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". This version in the singular would make the Johannine Prologue one of the major attestations of Jesus' virginal conception, placed in the context of the mystery of the Incarnation.

Paul's paradoxical affirmation: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman ... so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5), paves the way to the question about this Son's personhood, and thus about his virginal birth.

The uniform Gospel witness testifies how faith in the virginal conception of Jesus was firmly rooted in various milieux of the early Church. This deprives of any foundation several recent interpretations which understand the virginal conception not in a physical or biological sense, but only as symbolic or metaphorical: it would designate Jesus as God's gift to humanity. The same can be said for the opinion advanced by others, that the account of the virginal conception would instead be a [i]theologoumenon[/i], that is, a way of expressing a theological doctrine, that of Jesus' divine sonship, or would be a mythological portrayal of him.

As we have seen, the Gospels contain the explicit affirmation of a virginal conception of the biological order, brought about by the Holy Spirit. The Church made this truth her own, beginning with the very first formulations of the faith (cf. [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], n. 496).

4. The faith expressed in the Gospels is confirmed without interruption in later tradition. The formulas of faith of the first Christian writers presuppose the assertion of the virginal birth: Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are in agreement with Ignatius of Antioch, who proclaims Jesus "truly born of a virgin" ([i]Smyrn[/i]. 1, 2). These authors mean a real, historical virginal conception of Jesus and are far from affirming a virginity that is only moral or a vague gift of grace manifested in the child's birth.

The solemn definitions of faith by the Ecumenical Councils and the papal Magisterium, which follow the first brief formulas of faith, are in perfect harmony with this truth. The Council of Chalcedon (451), in its profession of faith, carefully phrased and with its infallibly defined content, affirms that Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity in these last days, for us and for our salvation, by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (DS 301). In the same way the Third Council of Constantinople (681) proclaimed that Jesus Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity, by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, she who is properly and in all truth the Mother of God" (DS 555). Other Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II, Lateran IV and Lyons II) declared Mary "ever-virgin", stressing her perpetual virginity (DS 423, 801, 852). These affirmations were taken up by the Second Vatican Council, which highlighted the fact that Mary "through her faith and obedience ... gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" ([i]Lumen gentium[/i], n. 63).

In addition to the conciliar definitions, there are the definitions of the papal Magisterium concerning the Immaculate Conception of the "Blessed Virgin Mary" (DS 2803) and the Assumption of the "Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mother of God" (DS 3903).

[b]Mary's holiness and virginity are closely linked[/b]

5. Although the definitions of the Magisterium, except for those of the Lateran Council of 649, desired by Pope Martin I, do not explain the meaning of the term "virgin", it is clear that this term is used in its customary sense: the voluntary abstention from sexual acts and the preservation of bodily integrity. However, physical integrity is considered essential to the truth of faith of Jesus' virginal conception (cf. [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], n. 496).

The description of Mary as "Holy Ever-Virgin, Immaculate" draws attention to the connection between holiness and virginity. Mary wanted a virginal life, because she was motivated by the desire to give her whole heart to God.

The expression used in the definition of the Assumption, "the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mother of God", also implies the connection between Mary's virginity and her motherhood: two prerogatives miraculously combined in the conception of Jesus, true God and true man. Thus Mary's virginity is intimately linked to her divine motherhood and perfect holiness.


Taken from: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM26.HTM"]EWTN Documents[/url]
[/quote]

I am sure Catholics believe this, just as they try to explain away Jesus' brothers as being from a former marriage, in spite of not sharing either the same father or mother. ["It's a 'mystery'"]

But by quoting documents that are not regarded by any but Christians, and Catholics at that, as having any authority, the bottom line is that it is a matter of faith, not subject to any actual evidence of reality. That's fine, but all non-Christians don't believe it, some more fervently than others.

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 December 2009 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1260797538' post='2020215']
The LXX translation of [i]almah[/i] as παρθένος is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the term in Greek, since [i]almah[/i] means a young woman of marriageable age.
[/quote]

If the Greek word is not "virgin", then what has been all the fuss about through the centuries? She was married to Joseph, and either he was Jesus' father, or she got pregnant out of wedlock and tried to avoid the stigma of it by claiming it was God who did it, in the manner of pagan deities like Zeus. In any case, it is interesting to note that in Jewish law when a woman is pregnant by anyone other than her husband, the child is a mamzer [usually translated "bastard" for lack of a better term]. Mamzerim suffer a number of civil and religious disabilities.

All I can say is that the Hebrew of Isaiah most emphatically is NOT "virgin", as I've pointed out above.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1260816876' post='2020436']
If the Greek word is not "virgin", then what has been all the fuss about through the centuries? She was married to Joseph, and either he was Jesus' father, or she got pregnant out of wedlock and tried to avoid the stigma of it by claiming it was God who did it, in the manner of pagan deities like Zeus. In any case, it is interesting to note that in Jewish law when a woman is pregnant by anyone other than her husband, the child is a mamzer [usually translated "bastard" for lack of a better term]. Mamzerim suffer a number of civil and religious disabilities.

All I can say is that the Hebrew of Isaiah most emphatically is NOT "virgin", as I've pointed out above.
[/quote]
You may say that most emphatically if you wish, but you are wrong, the Hebrew word "almah" means a young woman of marriageable age, and that is why the Jewish translators of the LXX chose to use the Greek word I noted in my earlier post (i.e., παρθένο ς, which means virgin). As the Church Fathers pointed out, young married women conceive naturally all the time and so there is no real sign in that, but there certainly is a sign when a virgin conceives a child.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Apotheoun