CIRA International seek the individual prophet; general or specific prophecy?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

It becomes all the more obvious that the idea of a Prophet simply being sent within Israel makes no sense because Prophets were always sent to Israel speaking in the name of God through the 'spirit of God' before and after the prophecy of Horeb, prophets like Jeremiah

Jer1:9"Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth".

It can't refer to simply revelations, because their subsequent prophets did not promulgate any new laws, as was the case at Sinai in the context of the prophecy. Jesus for example adhered to the law of the Torah to the minutest detail and ordered his followers to do the same. None of them and no prophet after Moses established a new nation, Jesus said that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel. After Moses's death and Joshua's apointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillement, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene. That indicator cannot be what is stated in the rest of Deut34:10-12, such as God speaking face to face with the prophet, since the prophecy of Deut18 itself says in which manner he would receive revelation

"I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him".

Neither does the indicator has anything to do with prophetic miracles the like of which Moses performed, since the 2nd criterion of the prophet has to do with divine judgement of those that reject him.  

By Jesus' time and their successive humiliations at the hands of their enemies, that prophetic, legislating and governing figure that is to to establish a new nation under a new law, which they will be bound to follow and support, became garbled with a davidic royal, supposed to bring back their own former glory above the nations, as well as re-introduce their own law that became obsolete with the loss of their right to exercize it. This is seen by their vague allusion to "the prophet" on one side and "the messiah" on the other, when they came questionning John the Baptist as to his identity. They knew this prophet was still awaited but lost the purpose of the prophecy related to him, as well as the indicators that would lead them to recognize him. However, the evidence, as is being shown, was not blotted out entirely hence some among the most learned Jews in the prophet Muhammad's time claiming to

"recognize him as they know their own sons".

There is a reason why Moses, their most prominent leader and prophet, never says a word about that messiah supposed to re-establish them as a nation under God. And yet this messianic king is the most anticipated religious figure of the entire Jewish scriptures? Moses predicts the Israelites' future disobedience and destructions, as well as rehabilitation, but never speaks in that context of the royal messiah supposed to achieve what they would later claim will be precisely his role Deut31-32. Simply put, this end times savior is a post-mosaic development meant at consoling the exiled Jews. There is no notion of a messianic salvific figure anywhere in the 5 books of Moses. This is significant because the Torah, in terms of authority ranks higher than other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. In orthodox judaism, the books that comprise the bible are arranged in descending order of inspiration. First the Torah considered word for word divinely inspired, then the books of the various prophets which God motivated the prophets to write without telling them exactly what to write, then lastly the ketuvim or writings in which God had no direct influence. Given the cosmic importance of the messiah, we should expect a mention of the person, or even the concept in the Books of Moses, but nothing.

As already pointed, in the days of Jesus the priests were still awaiting the coming of "the prophet". The text points to that personality with a definite article, meaning a specific, unnamed, unidentified prophetic figure that has not appeared yet. Along with this prophet, the Jews awaited the coming of the messiah, as well as the return of previous identified, known prophetic figures to them, including Elijah or Jeremiah Matt16:14. So they proceeded in questionning John, inquiring to see if he fitted any of the roles Jn1:19-25. John answered no to all

The reason John gives this answer is because he was not the Messiah, not "that prophet" and not a physical reincarnation of Elijah. He demonstrated a misunderstanding on the Jewish priests' part who thought Elijah would be resurrected in flesh hence their inability to recognize his fullfilement of the prophecy, as here stated

Matt17:12"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him".

John hinted to their misunderstanding by identifiying himself with the messenger prophecised in Isa40:3 who is none else than Elijah. Jesus is also quoted in Lk7:27 confirming John had fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi3:1,4:5 speaking of Elijah returning and paving the way for the Messiah, and because John had fulfilled that role, he is said to have come

Lk1:17"in the spirit and power of Elijah".

These 3 prophecies eagerly awaited to be fulfilled by the Jews were thus speaking of 3 separate entities, 2 of which have already been settled in the persons of John as Elijah and Jesus as the messiah.
 
In Matt11:2-6 John asks Jesus to clarify his position. This, as a side note, is a contradiction in itself as John identified him earlier as the "lamb of god". Nevertheless, John asks JEsus

"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

"He that should come" may signify both the Christ or a Prophet like unto Moses, because both had been waited for. As evidence of his true identity, Jesus gives various miracles and none of those qualify him as being the "Prophet like unto Moses" and all of them qualify him as the prophecied Messiah/Christ Isa29:18,35:5-6. Here is a clear statement by Jesus himself using the scriptures as evidence of who he is and who he is not. Nonetheless the gospel of John in jn1:45,5:31-47,6:14 still wants to equate Jesus with the specific prophet but since the Gospels and the HB cleary distinguish between "that prophet" and the Messiah/Christ, the author of Acts3, conscious of the difficulty in equating the 2 personalities attempts to reconcile them together. He argues that the prophecy of Deut18 still refers to the Christ, but the one that is supposed to return, since the pre-crucifixion Christ did not qualify as being the awaited prophet.

All this tangled web is cleared if we go back to the basic fact that the HB and NT make a clear distinction between the "Prophet like unto Moses" and the Christ/Messiah. But what is even more important is that Jesus nowhere claims to be or presents himself as the promised "that prophet" or "Prophet like unto Moses". The most important message of all 4 gospels is the belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, not as the promised prophet like unto Moses. In Jn20:31 for example, the author signs his work with the statement that all that precedes was written to convince the readers that Jesus is the Messiah, a personnality clearly distinct from "the prophet like unto Moses".

Jesus was a personality distinct from "that prophet" and in fact part of his mission was according to the Quran to give glad tidings of the Awaited One. This is precisely what he did in the NT when prophecising of the paraclete who would establish justice and a new order.