Jesus is Messiah

Deu 18:15 Con argues that the phrase, "from among you," means that the person is already in the midst of Israel, but throught the bible the term "among you" is not limited to those present when the statement is being made, but applies to later generations; for example Gen 17:10-12 where every male "among you" being circumcised is not limited to those present, but all later generations from Abraham. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo 12:49) "Among you" here applies to any "future" stranger that sojourns among them and not only to present ones. God was here giving the law that would be binding for centuries to come. Again Leviticus 17:8, 10 uses "among you" for a stranger even in future generations. The fact that this was discussing a possible future situation shows that "among you" need not be limited to those present, as this law applied to later generations. "Among you" is a synonym for "among the sons of Israel," so Moses was saying that God would raise up a prophet from among the Israelites, he was not saying that this prophet was already in their midsts as he spoke. What's more, we have no record in the Old Testament that Joshua was this prophet, or that this prophet had ever arrived. It is strange that no Old Testament writer applied these words to Joshua if indeed he was that prophet. Con claims the similarities end where Jesus chastized the people for not doing God's will; how quickly he forgot that both Jesus and Moses escaped infanticide ordered by the respective rulers of their time. (Ex 1:22; 2:1-10; Mt 2:13-18) Moses was called out of Egypt with Yahweh's "firstborn," the nation of Israel, Jesus was called out of Egypt as God's firstborn Son. (Ex 4:22,ï¿½23; Ho 11:1; Mt 2:15, 19-21) Both fasted for 40 days in the wilderness. (Ex 34:28; Mt 4:1,ï¿½2) Both came in the name of Jehovah, Jesus' name itself meaning "Jehovah Is Salvation." (Ex 3:13-16; Mt 1:21; Joh 5:43) Jesus, like Moses, ‘declared the name of the Lord [YHWH].' (De 32:3; Joh 17:6,ï¿½26) Both were exceptional in meekness and humility. (Nu 12:3; Mt 11:28-30) Both had astounding miracles to show they were sent by God. (Ex 14:21-31; Ps 78:12-54; Mt 11:5; Mr 5:38-43; Lu 7:11-15, 18-23) Moses was mediator of the Law covenant between God and the nation of Israel, Jesus was Mediator of the new covenant between God and the "holy nation," the church. (1Pe 2:9; Ga 6:16; Ex 19:3-9; Lu 22:20; Heb 8:6; 9:15) Moses was a judge, lawgiver and leader; so is Jesus. (Ex 18:13; 32:34; Da 9:25; Mal 4:4; Mt 23:10; Joh 5:22,ï¿½23; 13:34; 15:10) Moses was entrusted with and proved faithful to his stewardship in the ‘house of God,' Israel. Jesus showed faithfulness over God's house that he as God's Son constructed, the church. (Nu 12:7; Heb 3:2-6) And even in death there was a parallel: God took care of the bodies of both Moses and Jesus. (De 34:5,ï¿½6; Ac 2:31; Jude 9) Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to heal all his people who had faith; Jesus was lifted up on the cross to heal all who would have faith in Him (John 3:14-15; Num 21:7-9). Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). Jesus was more like Moses than Joshua ever was. Contrary to Con's assertion, Jesus did follow the patter set by the prophets in justifying his pronouncements on the Torah, for Jesus always refered back to the Law and the prophets to back up what he said. (Luke 24:44-45) And Jesus did not proclaim justification on his own authority, but on the authority of his Father in heaven. He came to do, not his own will, but that of his Father. It was God the Father, the Law and Prophets that bore witness to Jesus; he didn't do so on his own authority. (John 5:30-47) He said his teachings were not his, but his Father's. (John 7:16-18) So Jesus did not use his divinity as God to do anything in his own name, but as a man, submitted to his Father's will. So Jesus did follow the path of a true prophet of Israel. Con argues that if Jesus is greater than Moses he therefore couldn't be "like" Moses; but this is folly. Even in ancient Jewish understanding Adam and Eve were were "like God" even though God was greater than them (Gen 3:22), so being greater than Moses doesn't deny the parallels that make Jesus "like" Moses as well. Two people can be alike in many ways while also being different in many ways. Is Con going to argue that there could be no differnces between Moses and Joshua? What proves beyond doubt the prophet like Moses could not be Joshua is Deu 34:10-12 which says that a prophet like Moses had not arisen in Israel since. My opponent certainly agrees that Moses could not have written about events after his own death, so Deuteronomy had to be written by someone much later, holding Moses in high esteem. Therefore, even after Moses, the author of this book agrees that no one, not even Joshua, was like Moses! This means the prophet like Moses had to arrive "after" the book of Deuteronomy was finished. This rules out it being Joshua. It had to be someone who came later, and Jesus fits the bill from all the parallels I've described. Con argues that the prophet couldn't be God and yet speak for God, and this would contradict Deuteronomy 18:16 "Let me not continue to hear the voice of teh L-rd my G-d" lest they die, if Jesus was God speaking to them in person. Firstly, Deuteronomy 18:16 is saying they would die from beholding God in his divine glory, not in the flesh. Jewish understanding was that God used to appear in the flesh to men and they lived. (Gen 16:13; 18:1-22; 32:30; Exo 33:11; Judges 13:22) So Jesus appearing as God in the flesh in the New Testament would not contradict the Biblical understanding of Deuteronomy 18:16 anymore than Yahweh's manifestations in the flesh to Old Testament folks. So why would the prophet speak for God if he is God? Well, and angel is by definition a "messenger" speaking for another. Yet, at Genesis 31:11-13 "the angel of God" claims to be "the God" of Bethel where Jacob made a vow to him. He was speaking for God the Father, but he himself was God the Son, just as God the Son is messenger of God the Father in the New Testament. The fact that throughout the Old Testament we have God himself appearing as a messenger (angel) shows why Con can't deny that Moses could intend the prophet would also be God as well. Manoah confessed that the angel, or messenger, was also God, and thought he would die; but didn't die cause he didn't see him in his glory but only in the flesh. (Judges 13:11-22) Acts 3:23 says that anyone who doesn't listen to the prophet will be destroyed from among the people. Peter was speaking to Israelites (vs 12), and Jesus had told these people to flee to the mounntains when they saw Jerusalem encircled by encamped armies they should flee to the mountains. (Luke 21:20-24; 19:41-44) This warning was given in the 30's C.E. In 66ï¿½C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City." (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to listen to the prophet and flee from the city, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Crusï¿½, London, 1894, p. 75) In 70ï¿½C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. Those who didn't listen to the prophet and flee, died or went into slavery. They were destroyed from among the people as Acts 3:23 requires. Any living today who don't listen to him will also be destoryed from among the saved. I'm out of space and will answer the rest of his points next round.