[aruanan]

The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.

I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of "ha’almah" by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

And this, considering the quote above, underlines the central question: what is the payoff for deliberately choosing the one meaning of the word that most completely obliterates the significance of what the gospel author and many others claimed if it were read as they and others of their time understood it in its context?

What this person does with his or her treatment of "virgin" is typical of the "it's only" approach to minimization. If true, the target of minimization would be too psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually disruptive to maintain sanity or a claim of honesty in dealing with the purported facts. So it usually comes down to something like this, "If what the gospel writers are saying is true, then anyone who rejects their claims is in deep crap. I don't want to be in deep crap; therefore, what they are claiming cannot possibly be true because "it's only" this or that due to their dishonesty or their ignorance of the real world and I'm off the hook for any moral claims against my life and I can do what I like because I must only to my own self be true."

Something similar is seen in all the cults that have spun off of Judaism and Christianity. Look at Islam, for instance. If everything of a Christian or Jewish origin were removed from Islam, there would be little left. The general content of the lives of the patriarchs and prophets and Mary and Jesus is retained to provide the religious and historical context without which Islam's claims would be meaningless. But everything having to do with what both the Jews and the Christians assert to be the central meaning of their stories is ignored, excised, or explained away. This is done because if what the writers of the Bible say the relationship of God to the Jewish people means for those living in that region and what the deity and resurrection of Jesus means for the world is true, then what Islam is claiming for itself cannot possibly be true.

[annalex]

the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of "ha’almah" by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

First, for a Catholic Christian, the Gospels are the direct message from God and the Old Testament is in many parts vague and imprecise , -- albeit inspired -- prefigurements of it. So, in principle, it is possible that the New Testament clarifies and rephrases the Old. This is why it was wrtiten in the first place.

However, to take "almah" in some way that excludes the sense of "virgin" is absurd, because to say, "behold, a young woman will conceive and call the Child Emmanuel" is a meaningless statement. It is old women conceiving that is near miraculous and is perhaps worth prophesying about, not young ones.

[srweaver]

You posted: I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of “ha’almah” by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

Very well stated! Actually, your whole post is instructive.

It is interesting for me to note that Biblical Christianity (by definition) accepts, respects, and appreciates the revelation of the Old Testament and the establishment of the physical seed of Abraham (through Isaac) as the people of God (Hebrews, Jews, or however appropriately identified). Beyond that, though, they believe in the further revelation promised throughout the Old Testament that there would be a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), which Christians believe includes the seed of Abraham by faith, and not only blood.

Conversely, non-Christian or non-Messianic Jews do not (as far as I am aware) accept the central beliefs of Christianity, which would move them into this new covenant as Bible believing Christians understand it. These beliefs include the integration of the “Gentiles” who have faith in God into the one people of God.

Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 10:12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11  Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.