Does it say that in Matthew’s Gospel? It says he was a tax collector, but I can’t see anything else about his personal background, before he became one of the Twelve.
Luke 7:20 When the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’” 21 At that time he cured many of their diseases, sufferings, and evil spirits; he also granted sight to many who were blind. 22 And he said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. 23 And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”[a]
The scribes were fully familiar with the Scriptures, the people at large not so much. That would have made it harder for the scribes to accept Jesus as the Messiah. He was too unlike the scriptural descriptions of the Messiah.
Yeah. I feel badly for the anti-Christian Jews of that period. I may have mentioned this to you before. There’s another prophecy that is rarely mentioned. The prophecy of the Dreamer of dreams who describes another god which no one has heard of. The prophecy ends with the command that the Jews should kill this Dreamer.De_Maria:
The scribes were fully familiar with the Scriptures, the people at large not so much. That would have made it harder for the scribes to accept Jesus as the Messiah. He was too unlike the scriptural descriptions of the Messiah.
Yes. And then came the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. I find it ironic that Orthodox Jews even to this day readily admit that the destruction of the First Temple was punishment by God because of idolatry but are at a loss to explain the destruction of the Second Temple.
Interestong since he did not learn that Jesus was the Messiah from Scripture, but personal revelation.
The NT states that scribes were from the party of the Pharisees, and the scribes studied the OT Scriptures. Since the Pharisees had the complete OT canon, they should have been able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah based on the number of specific prophecies were fulfilled by Him.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. The full canon of the Hebrew Bible in its present form seems to have been settled at a later date.
Jesus was well aware that he didn’t match the description of the Messiah found in the Scriptures. Please see my post #4 on this thread.
In terms of the current 3-fold canon labeled “the Law” & “the Prophets” & “the Writings,” although this description was “settled” later in the second century A.D., the OT canon of the Pharisees which includes the same books was “settled” centuries earlier prior to the time of Christ.
Jesus said no such thing. In fact, in John Ch.4 when He is talking to the Samaritan woman, He proclaimed Himself to be the Messiah, which she would have recognized from the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was a modified version of the Jewish Torah. Plus, whenever He rebuked the Pharisees & the scribes, He repeatedly referred back to the OT Scriptures in the Hebrew Bible. Also, the fact that the Jewish leaders were expecting a “messiah” who was more of a political/military leader who they hoped would overthrow their Roman oppressors was based on their extra-biblical “traditions,” but not from the Scriptures. The OT is explicit that the Messiah would be God, and that He would “free” Israel from their sins by dying & rising from the dead. So, it wasn’t that Jesus didn’t feel He was the Messiah of the Scriptures, but that that He wasn’t the false “messiah” the Jewish leaders had envisioned in their own minds.
I don’t think so. Here, for instance, is Psalm 132 (131), in which the word Mashiach (“anointed,” Messiah) occurs twice, in vv. 10 and 17. The whole psalm clearly refers to a king in the literal sense, who will also be the high priest. The Lord promises to restore Israel as an independent kingdom with its ruling dynasty to be descended from David.
The Dead Sea scrolls seem to confirm the OT canon that we have today (minus Esther) with the addition of the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch.
Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man?RaisedCatholic:
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. The full canon of the Hebrew Bible in its present form seems to have been settled at a later date.
Jesus was well aware that he didn’t match the description of the Messiah found in the Scriptures. Please see my post #4 on this thread.
I think Jesus matched the description of the Messiah perfectly. Simeon saw it. The three wise men saw it. Magdalene saw it. Peter saw it. Nicodemus saw it. Pilate saw it. Thousands of people who heard him speak saw it.