 So here's the question I wanted to explore. We have in a Christian Bible, we have the Gospels, basically about the life of Jesus, not written by him, they're written between 40 and 70 years after he dies. We don't really know who wrote the books, the people that wrote them gave the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but there's no way of establishing that. And then most of the other books are written by Paul, originally named Shaul of Tarsus, and he basically took the name Paul after he became a follower of Jesus. And the question that is important to ask, I believe, is what is the foundation upon which these writers expect to have their writings incorporated into the Bible? Now the truth is that the Christian Bible is glued onto the back of the Jewish Bible. So in a Christian Bible, this is what they call the Old Testament. And as Jews we know why we assume that these books are actually revealed by God, and it's not that difficult to understand. The five books of Moses, we understand, were transmitted by God to Moses. How do we know that? Because in the book of Exodus chapter 19 verse 9, we're told, God says to Moses, I'm going to speak to you so that all of the people will hear me speaking to you. This is a critical point to remember. It's not that Moses comes down from Mount Sinai and convinces everyone that God spoke to him. No, God revealed himself to Moses in a way where there was absolutely zero doubt that God spoke to Moses because everyone heard God speaking to Moses. So Moses' credentials as a prophet are indisputable. The big question is, okay, but what about Joshua? And what about Samuel? And what about Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel? No one heard God speaking to Samuel. No one heard God speaking to Isaiah. So by what criteria do we accept them as true prophets? So the answer again is fairly simple. The answer is not because they claim to be prophets. That is not it. Because every false prophet also claims to be a prophet. So you don't have the legitimacy of being a prophet simply because you're claiming that God spoke to you. So on the basis of what do we accept them as true prophets? So God told us on what basis. We know in the Bible that false prophecy is a capital crime, meaning that theoretically you can be executed for speaking as a false prophet. So the big question is, well, who decides whether someone is a true prophet or not? Who makes that determination? I mean, if someone's prophesying on the street, are you allowed to say, you know what? I don't think you are a real prophet. I'm going to blow your head off. No. What you might think would happen is that if we have any question about someone, we would pray to God and God would reveal to us. God would tell us in the same way he made it clear that Moses was a true prophet. We would pray to God and God would reveal to us, yes, my children, Isaiah is a true prophet. But that's also not the system. In the system that God set up, he tells us in the 17th chapter of Deuteronomy that any time there's a question of Torah law, you will follow the ruling of the leading sages and judges at your time. Now, again, God could have said, if there's a question, come to me. No, that's not what God says. God says, if there's a question, a doubt, you don't know what to do, you consult with the leading sages and judges. So at the end of the day, how do we know that Isaiah was a true prophet? Answer? Because the leading sages of his generation accepted him as a true prophet and didn't condemn him as a false prophet. That's the mechanism that God set up. So the question I think that any Jewish person should be asking is, on the basis of what does Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and tonight we're talking about Paul, why would we assume that Paul actually heard from God? Why should I believe that? What is the substantiation of that claim? So I tried doing quite a bit of research. So why do Christians believe that Paul actually was a prophet that heard from God? And I couldn't find that much. I was a little bit surprised. I'll share with you something that I found. It was an article by Don Stewart on his website. And he presents five reasons why we should believe that Paul actually heard from God. Number one, he believed his message to be divine. I'm not impressed. Because again, any false prophet would also believe their message was divine. Number two, Paul spoke of my gospel. Paul said this is my gospel. Now why that proves that Paul heard from God? I don't understand. But basically, it boils down to the same thing as number one. It's that Paul claimed to be a prophet. Basically, number one, he believed his message to be divine. Number two, he spoke of my gospel. So basically, the reason that Paul is accepted as a prophet is that Paul claimed to be one. Number three, Paul received direct revelation from Jesus. Now again, you have to think of this person's presuppositions. He assumes Jesus is God. So if Paul hears from Jesus, then he must be hearing from God. Obviously, by the way, you have to understand, Paul never met Jesus. Paul claims that the Jesus that went to heaven, so to speak, speaks to him. So what Don Stewart says is that since Paul received direct revelation from Jesus, then he must be a true prophet. Now how do we know that Paul received direct revelation from Jesus? So he cites here 1 Corinthians chapter 9 verse 1, where Paul claims that Jesus spoke to him. So it's sort of circular reasoning. How do we know that Paul's a true prophet because Paul himself claims that Jesus spoke to him? Again, the first three on this list all say the exact same thing. It's all dependent upon Paul's claim about himself. Number four, Paul says about himself, if you disobey his writings, you'll be disciplined. Again, the same exact story. It's true because I say it's true. And finally number five, Don Stewart says that Paul's writings were considered scripture in his lifetime. Now what is the source for this? How do we know that Paul's writings were considered scripture in his life? I'm now obviously, it wasn't by the Jewish community. There weren't any great rabbis or Jewish sages that said, oh yes, Paul was clearly a legitimate prophet. And that would have been the necessary criteria to be established as a prophet. The people that God put in charge would have to have validated his prophecy. However, prophecy already ended hundreds of years before Paul lived. There was no more prophecy at the time of Paul. In any event, Don Stewart says that what proves that Paul is a true prophet is that his writings were considered scripture in his lifetime. Where does it say that in the Christian Bible? So he cites 2 Peter chapter three verses 15 and 16. Let me share this with you. It says, consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all of his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which untold and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do with the rest of scripture. So what Don Stewart assumes is that since 2 Peter speaks about Paul and compares Paul being misunderstood to other scripture that's misunderstood, that Paul must be considered part of scripture. Now that's not necessarily the case, meaning what 2 Peter might be meaning is that just like scripture is misunderstood, so too Paul's writings are misunderstood. It's not necessarily telling us that Paul is a part of scripture. In any event, even if it did, it's a declaration by someone who's not empowered by God to make a decision like this. At the end of the day, what this is a serious Christian scholar, what he claims in his five points is that what establishes the credibility and the credentials of Paul as someone who is able to reveal the will of God is simply that Paul claims that God speaks to him, and that's it. And so what we saw previously is that that doesn't cut the mustard, that you do not get credibility as a prophet just because you claim to be one. You don't even get credibility as a prophet because you can do miracles. And the Christian Bible does claim that Paul did a few miracles, but miracles also don't establish a person as being a true prophet. The book of Deuteronomy chapter 13 tells us that even false prophets are able to do incredible supernatural miracles. Miracles in and of themselves do not prove someone is a legitimate prophet. And it's interesting that in this article, Don Stewart doesn't mention any of the miracles that Paul allegedly did. So his entire case is based upon simply Paul's assertion that he is someone who heard from God.