Resurrection and Deuteronomy 13 It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, than we have an objective rationale to believe in the Christian faith.

Let's assume for a moment that William Craig is correct that there is good evidence for the resurrection. Even so, does this conclude that Jesus was in fact who he said he was, i.e. the son of God?

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads as follows: 

"If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not known—even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him."

And the resurrection served as a sign: 

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:38-40)

As far as a Pharisee Jew is concerned, Jesus is certainly a god "whom you have not known"; Jesus and the Trinity were completely unknown to the Jews. Thus his sign should be disregarded.

Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed that same God that they knew,   but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question would then be: how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact the same god? For that Christian apologetics has turned to the resurrection as evidence. 

But the verse clearly states: " even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words" thus excluding supernatural signs as evidence! (In fact, in Exodus 7:11 even Pharoah's sorcerers were capable of performing supernatural feats.)

So we are back to square one; first we need evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Then and only then, does the historicity of the resurrection have any relevance to affirming Jesus. Without prior evidence, it seems justifiable to write Jesus off as a false prophet.

Now many are quick to point out that Jesus claimed to be that very same god of the OT and even admonished Israel for not revering the god of the OT. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that he is that very same god. Where are we to look for that verification? The resurrection? But that may just be another "sign" or "portent". 

It seems that the only acceptable form of validation must come from the Old Testament itself i.e fulfilled messianic prophecies. That is, the historicity of a supernatural feat has no place in the debate between Christians and Jews.

Please note what I'm NOT saying:


Christianity therefore must be false
Deuteronomy 13 by definition must exclude Jesus
The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as a "proof"


What I AM saying:

The Resurrection in and of itself can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.
For mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals), Resurrection is NOT the key to Jesus's identity.  Rather, the resurrection shows the VICTORY of Jesus over the power of death due to His obedience to God the Father.  If you read the four Gospels, the speeches in the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul, the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah was determined based on the PROPHECIES in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians now).  There are overwhelming details in the prophecies that matched the details of Jesus's birth, ministry, suffering, and the manner of his death on the cross.  See my answer to another question for a list of key Bible verses that Christians deem to point to Jesus.

Your charge that Jesus taught His disciples to worship another god is not true because Jesus worshiped the same God that Abraham and Moses worshiped.  The writings in the New Testament consistently show that when the 12 apostles spread the good news (that God the Father has finally sent the messiah as He promised) and established churches throughout the Roman Empire, they exhorted the church members to worship the same God the Father as well (Example, see Romans 12-13:10 where Paul instructed the church in Rome to live in the manner pleasing to God the Father; Jesus was barely mentioned and out of focus).

Of course Christians also worship Jesus as Lord, because Christians believe that the essence of Jesus is the same as the essence of God the Father.  But yes, the Pharisees in Jesus's generation didn't believe that it was God the Father who sent Jesus, so understandably this led to the charge that Jesus was a false prophet and more seriously that Jesus blasphemed God by claiming that He shared God the Father's essence.  Even the famous missionary Paul (a Pharisee who studied under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel) also hunted down Christians before his conversion (possibly so the land was not polluted with their "sins" which could have led to the anger of God the Father).  After Paul became Christian, the religious authorities in Jerusalem wanted to kill him too, just as they killed Jesus for blasphemy; see Acts 21:26-22:23.

I agree with you that the Resurrection on its own is not enough to determine Jesus's identity.  So if you notice, in the Gospels Jesus explained, especially after his resurrection, how the prophecies pointed to Him (see for example Luke 24:13-53).  Notice also how verse 53 says that not only Jesus's disciples worshiped God the Father for sending Jesus, they worshiped IN THE TEMPLE, where every Jew throughout the Roman Empire believed to have the presence of the God of Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.  It is clear then, from the very beginning, how the earliest disciples never wavered from associating the God of Jesus with the God of their ancestors.  The resurrection (along with the miracles which Jesus performed prior to his death) was simply to AUTHENTICATE that Jesus was who He said He was.  If we believe the Gospels to be roughly historically accurate (i.e. not Legend), then we are left with the famous trilemma when considering Jesus's claim of who He is.

ADDENDUM

After further reading such as here, I can see how my answer above will not be sufficient for you, because Judaism's own presuppositions judge a priori (using Deut 13:1-5) how:


Christian's God the Father is considered a different God than Judaism's God, although both Paul and Jesus emphatically credit the God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah with all the miracles and the sending of the Messiah.
"God is not allowed" to update the Torah, so therefore Christian teaching of how Mosaic law has been superseded by the New Covenant is considered heretical outright, although according to Christians the laws that Christians are supposed to keep with the help of the New Heart (given by God) are purer and more universal.
Even if Jesus performed greater miracles than Elijah and Elisha to show that the power came from God the Father, Judaism will reject it as irrelevant, and uses Deut 13:1-5 to regard the miracles as lies and as coming from the devil, just as how the Pharisees claimed Jesus's power came from the devil, as in when Jesus healed a demon-possessed man.


As a result of the a priori rules above, it becomes a lot more complicated to make Christian teaching acceptable to adherents of Judaism.  But I did find a blogger who in fact responded to a similar charge  (that resurrection is irrelevant).  I hope his answer helps!

On further reflection, I believe the root cause between the diverging interpretations of Deut 13:1-5 is simply a different hermeneutics when reading the Scriptures, especially because in Judaism there is Oral Torah and other authorities which significantly changes one's reading of the same passage.  Yes, within Christian mainstream there are internal differences on how to interpret certain passages of Scriptures (also due to differences in hermeneutics), but they are VERY minor when compared to how Judaism reads the Hebrew Bible.  Case in point: how very different Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses commonly used by Christians to show as predicting Jesus.  Another Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses can be found here.  (Both links are taken from the posts of JPH who initiated the "resurrection is irrelevant" discussion on the aforementioned blogger's site).

At this point I'm just satisfied to agree to disagree.  God bless you!