The resurrection & Deut 13 - If a prophet says "Let us worship another god" - Do NOT follow him, even if he gives a sign/miracle

It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, then 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 the 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: 1. Christianity therefore _must_ be false 2. Deuteronomy 13 by definition _must_ exclude Jesus 3. The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as "proof" What I **am** saying: The Resurrection _in and of itself_ can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.