well first of all jesus is gods son and his only. moses went into the mountain to get the stone of the ten commandments . jesus is preaching and he says why do you follow moses but when your god is here you go with a prophet? well he says something like that. not exact words.
A:This is a reference to Hosea 11:1. The author of Matthew was drawing a series of parallels between Moses and Jesus, and Hosea 11:1 fitted this, not only because Jesus would be called out of Egypt but also because of the gospel allusions to Moses - Hosea was referring to the Exodus when he wrote: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. "
Matthew is not in the Jewish Bible.
This was the first year of Jesus' ministry, so it would be 29-30AD.
Matthew 17:3 says: "...here appeared to them Moses and E‧li′jah, conversing with him." Jesus told his apostles that he would 'die and be resurrected' (Mark 8:27-31), though he also promised that some of his disciples would "not taste death at all" until they had first seen "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) This promise was fulfilled a few days later when Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus into "a lofty mountain" (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28) where, while praying, Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being before them. This was a 'vision' indicating that Jesus would do a work like Moses did, but greater; and also a work like that of Elijah, but in a larger way. It was there plainly manifested that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and the 'prophet greater than Moses' ; worthy of the title Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:19-23) Many have called this a dream, but Peter, James, and John would not logically all have had exactly the same dream. Jesus himself called what took place a "vision" (Matthew 17:9).
From a Christian perspective, Jesus would win hands down. Moses was merely a prophet; Mohammed was a false prophet; but Jesus is God in human flesh. God always "wins" over a mere mortal. Both the Jewish (Moses) and the Muslim (Mohammed) would say their greatest individual would win.
The similarity between the Jesus of the gospels and Moses in the Old Testament comes about because the gospel authors, most notably the author of Matthew, wrote accounts that emphasised the similarity. They clearly believed that if Jesus could be shown to be similar to Moses then that would confirm his greatness.Some of the evangelists missed opportunities, or did not feel that comparisons between Jesus and Moses were so significant. Whereas Matthew says that the father of Joseph was called Jacob, just as in the Old Testament, Luke says that Joseph's father was called Heli. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says there is little likelihood that either is strictly historical, but Matthew is able to use this small point to create a parallel with Moses. The entire nativity story of Matthew goes on to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses.John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) says that Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash.The significance is that, even today, there are some who look for this evidence and stare in wonder when they see the gospels describing Jesus in these terms. The evangelists were right to believe that similarities between Jesus and Moses would always be highly regarded.
It was said that gentle jesus was put into the egg by Moses because he would be reborn into a hen and then eaten at a KFC.
The Law of Moses, found in the Old Testament of the Bible, contains prophecies and foreshadowing about Jesus, the Messiah. It foretells of a coming savior who would fulfill the law and bring salvation to humanity.
Matthew is certainly the most 'Jewish' of all the Gospels with many Old Testament quotations and with Jewish customs teachings and religious controversies.It is possible that Matthew had in mind the similarity with Moses own personal history, and that he knew his audience would recognize this and the obvious fulfillment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 where Moses said:The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;That said, Matthew could not and of course would not have the material upon which to draw the similarity to people's attention if the historical details of Jesus' earthly existence had not been exactly as they were. So, if the implication is 'Did Matthew make anything up?' the is no, for the simple reason that in the presence of other eyewitnesses he wouldn't have gotten away with it.If the question is asking if he consciously drew the analogy or similarity then it is certainly possible.
The wisemen didn't visit Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. They were writers who wrote about the wisemen visiting Jesus shortly after his birth, and they wrote about it because it was a historic fact, part of the events that happened during Jesus' 30 years on earth.
In Matthew's nativity story, Jesus is compared with Moses, and Joseph is compared with the Patriarch Joseph of the Old Testament. Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" is an intentional parallel with the Pharaoh's slaughter of the infants in the Old Testament. This is not just drama, but an early example of Matthew'suse of the Old Testament to place Jesus firmly in the tradition of the Patriarchs.Elaine Pagels says that Matthew describes Jesus not only as a future king, but a mortal with divine power. But although Matthew does not go as far as to present Jesus as fully divine, as John's Gospel would do some decades later, Jesus' virgin birth is divinely ordained. Matthew uses the genealogy, which Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says is unlikely to be literally true, to present Jesus as predestined for greatness, not only because of his supposed descent from both Zorobabel and David, but because of the numerology incorporated in Jesus' ancestry. Throughout the Gospel, frequent references to the Old Testament reinforce the idea of Jesus as predestined for his role as Messiah.The author of Matthew, at 3:1, is unwilling to see Jesus involving himself in a baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins" so that line is omitted. Matthew's Jesus is free from the blemish of sin.
There is, of course, no hidden verse in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, but there is arguably a hidden meaning. Matthew wanted to demonstrate that Jesus was destined for greatness. To do this, he produced a genealogy that demonstrated that there were 14 generations: from Abraham to David; from David to Josiah; from Josiah to Jesus. To do this, he had to ignore 3 kings in the Old Testament and have David in the preceding (as 14) and following (as 1) groups, but not so Josiah. This continued from the time of the Exile to Jesus, but during these generations we have no other genealogy with which to compare Matthew's. Fourteen was regarded as a magic number, and the apparent coincidence that each fourteenth generation in this genealogy was a great man in Jewish history, meant that Jesus would also be a great man. Matthew wrote; ".....in all, forty-two generations (1: 17) but only 41 are listed, so there must be a missing or hidden verse somewhere.