.png)
“The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver!” is what made me want to do this series. It’s so easy to disprove that I was actually laughing while scrolling down the page. It was written by Sherry Shriner.
For starters, she presents a list of “truths” that “prove” that Paul was a deceiver. These include:
“Paul was Satan in the Flesh” (no verse to back it up)
“Paul’s account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.” (no verse to back it up)
“Paul declared he himself was the son of God” (no verse to back it up)
“Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did.” (no verse to back it up)
“Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing.” (no verse to back it up, and is pretty much the previous one reworded)
“Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14” (Jesus doesn’t have long hair)
“Paul said God’s law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who’s lying?” (no verse to back it up)
“Paul claimed he himself was the son of God” (again, repeating herself, and still no verse to back this one up)
“Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.”
Mark 2:27 (KJV)
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
If you read the context, Jesus is angering the priests for performing miracles on the Sabbath.
But she said Jesus says that you have to be circumcised. Let’s go read what Jesus said on the matter, using only the verse she gave.
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Oh, well there it is. He totally said……nothing, because He was a baby. He had it happen to Him. That’s not Him commanding us to be circumcised. Jesus was a Jew, and it was their custom to circumcise. He was also crucified. Does that mean He told us to go be crucified? You can’t even take that verse out of context. She says twice in the same line that “Jesus said it”, but it clearly says He was circumcised.
“In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads – “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He’s telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!”
Now this is where she nearly got me. I read those verses and they do say what she says it says. I even read the whole chapter and he constantly calls himself a fool and that he’s boasting. Paul even goes on to say:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
I saw that and went, “Whoa! Is Paul calling Jesus corrupt!?”
But you need to look at the bigger context. Which she never bothered to do.
The next thing she says is:
Jesus: “DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9)
The devil ‘PAUL’ BLASPEMOUSLY BOASTED
“For I BECAME YOUR FATHER” (1 Corinthians 4:15)
I’m guessing she didn’t think anyone would check on that. This is what that verse ACTUALLY says:
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Where does it say “for I am your father”? That “begotten” thing? Let’s look at the previous verse:
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
Why, that looks like he’s speaking metaphorically.
The next thing she does is take three verses out of context, literally splicing them together to make a new sentence.
“I (‘PAUL’) testify to the gospel of the grace of god…ANOTHER GOSPEL…ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL “ (Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23)
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
For that last one, you need, again, context.
After that point, the rest of the page is just a random collection of spliced verses (like “SAUL who is ALSO called ‘PAUL’.” Acts 13:9), and SCREEN-FILLING LARGE FONT LETTERS. The line “THE COMING OF “THE END…THE ABOMINATION WHICH MAKES DESOLATE ” **PROPHESIED BY DANIEL**” Took up my whole screen.
From what I could make out, she was trying to prove that Paul was the antichrist because the antichrist will desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, and the temple is gone now (even though she even points out that this will happen in the last days).
On her list of “truths”, she pointed out, “Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus”. That is simply not true. Jesus appeared to Paul (then called Saul), and told him to go into the city to be given instructions, and Paul was called to be God’s vessel.
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
But she could just say that of course Paul would say that. But here’s the thing, Paul didn’t write that. Acts was written by Luke, who wrote The Gospel of Luke (surprise!). Acts is actually a direct sequel to Luke. If you’re going to say that the Book of Acts is unreliable, then you’re saying the Gospel of Luke is unreliable.