The Cruelty of the Prophet

images (13).jpeg

Muhammad is introduced in the Quran as thus: “And We [Allah] have not sent you forth but as a mercy to mankind” (Sura 21:107).

In this series exposing the disturbing facets of the prophet of Islam, you must have observed how the Quran attempts to present a very clean image of Muhammad, but reading the Hadiths and the biographies which record his deeds quickly rips off that sweet, merciful image.

Muslims use diverse excuses to escape this dilemma. Some will say “Those hadiths are not sound!” or “Those hadiths have been corrupted by the Jews!” or the common one: “You are taking them out of context!”

The Quran-only Muslims will say “All the hadiths are fake!” Why are they saying these? It’s because they see that the image of Muhammad emanating from the hadiths is not of a prophet, but of a monster; but they still want to cling to him. So they have to repudiate their own sources.

The hadiths were collected by Muslims who were devoted to Islam and they have been in use for 12 centuries.

No real, consistent Muslim denies the Hadiths. If these accounts were reliable sources of what Muhammad did back then, they are to a large extent reliable today as well. Let’s then look at Muhammad’s actions.

1. He was a vengeful man

The concept of forgiveness was alien to Muhammad. After he gained enough military might and captured Mecca, he killed those he had a grudge with while he was living in Mecca:

“The Apostle of Allah entered through the Adhakhir (into Mecca) and prohibited fighting, he ordered six men and four women to be killed: Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl, Habbar ibn al-Aswad, AbdAllah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, Miqyas ibn Sababah, al-Huwayrith ibn Nuaqydh, Abd Abbah ibn Nilal ibn Khatal, Hind bint Utbah, Sarah the mawlat, Fartana and Qaribah” (Ibn Sa’ad, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-kabir, 2:168).

One of the men killed above, Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, was formerly one of Muhammad’s scribes who used to help him amend, rephrase, add to and subtract from the chapters of the Quran which Muhammad told people he was receiving hot from the sky. When Abi Sarh could no longer stomach the falsehood, he left Islam.

Islamic scholar, Ali Dashti noted:

“Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as he. After his apostasy, he went to Mecca and joined the Qorashites.” (23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad,  London, 1985, p. 98)

Muhammad never forgave him for leaving his cult, so he had him killed when he captured Mecca.

In another instance in Mecca, while Muhammad and his followers were reciting Sura al-Najm and prostrating (the emphasis of Islamic prayer was to knock your head on the ground. The dirtier your forehead, the more Muslim you were), an old Muslim man “took a handful of small stones or earth and lifted it to his forehead and said, ‘This is sufficient for me'”

He felt that if a dirty forehead was the essence of rakat, why not just make it easier, rub the dirt on your forehead! But he was killed for that joke (Bukhari 2:173).

2. A Man without sympathy

One of his soldiers, Ja’far, died at the battle of Mouta and women came to Muhammad’s place mourning.

“A man went to him and said, ‘The women trouble and disturb us.’ He told him to go back and quieten them’… [The man returned again] The apostle said, ‘Go and tell them to be quiet, and if they refuse throw dust in their mouths” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, translated by Alfred Guillaume, 1998, pp. 535-6).

Who would lose a friend or lover and not weep? The man expected Muhammad would follow him to comfort the grieving women and must have been shocked when Muhammad ordered him to throw some sand in the women’s mouth if they won’t keep quiet.

Yet this was a soldier who gave his life fighting for Islam, while Muhammad sat back in the comfort of his home. The “prophet” didn’t shed a single tear.

A similar thing happened to Jesus Christ when His close friend Lazarus died. When He arrived there, Mary knelt at His feet and said “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who were crying with her, he was deeply moved and troubled…Jesus cried” (John 11:32-35).

Even though Jesus knew He was still going to raise Lazarus from the dead, He still wept with them. He identified with human suffering and displayed godly compassion. What a big difference from the prophet of Islam!

When Uqba the Persian poet, who used to recite poems to ridicule Muhammad was captured by his army in Medina and knew he was going to be killed, he looked at Muhammad and pleaded:

“O Muhammad, if you kill me, who will take care for my children?” The prophet coldly replied “Hell would take care of them!” And he was killed (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, 308).

A merciful prophet? Nope.

3. A teacher of hate and sedition

Apart from his many curses and vituperations, his teachings instilled a sense of hate against non Muslims.

Sura 9:113 “It is improper to ask for Allah’s forgiveness for the infidels even if they are your parents or loved ones…”

Sura 9:23 “O ye who believe! [Muslims] Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.”

This means that even if their own father or brother leaves Islam, they must be fought and alienated. This is how cults operate.

Muhammad himself didn’t spare Haakim ibn Hizam, Khadija (his first wife)’s cousin at the battle of Uhud.

Even today, Muslims have no qualms killing their own relatives or loved ones for leaving Islam. There have been many cases of Muslim parents “honour killing” their own daughters and Muslim families killing other relatives who have denounced Islam.

Ali ibn Abu Talib narrated:

“A Jewess who used to insult the prophet and disparage him was strangled to death by a man. When the case was reported to Muhammad, the apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood” (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4349).

Recently, there was a mass grave of Boko Haram’s victims discovered in Borno State, Nigeria. Their bodies had been dumped in a pit after their throats were slashed.

These jihadists learnt this from their prophet: “On the day of Badr, the prophet ordered that the corpses of 24 leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr…” (Bukhari 5:314).

4. He was a torturer

When Muhammad and his men invaded the Bani Nadir Jewish tribe, they captured their leader named Kinana. These Jews were very rich and Muhammad wanted their wealth.

“Kenana al-Rabi, who had custody of the treasure of Bani Nadir was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where he was.”

A Jew was brought who confessed seeing Kinana going to a certain ruin every morning. Muhammad warned that if they checked that place and found the treasure, he would be killed.

When the ruin was excarvated, some of the treasure was found. Muhammad “asked him about the rest [of the treasure] he refused to produce it so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam ‘torture him until you extract what he has.’ So he kindled a fire with a flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head in revenge for his brother Mahmud” (Sirat Rasulallah, 145-6).

Kinana’s wife, Safiyya was taken to Muhammad’s bed and raped that same night.

It’s strange how some Muslims read these insidious actions of their prophet and still have to guts to say “Muhammad was a merciful man.” They need to put themselves in the shoes of the “infidels” in Muhammad’s time.

A man calls on you to believe in him as a prophet without any proof but you don’t. Then all of a sudden he raids your town, kills all those who defend themselves, enters your house, ties you up, demands you surrender all your money, tortures you, beheads you, then rapes your wife and daughter that same night. What kind of god would send a prophet like that?

There was also the case of 8 men of Ukl (or Urynah) who came to Medina and embraced Islam but soon became sick due to the weather. Muhammad instructed them to drink camel urine and they became healthy (what a nice medical advice modern Muslims ought to follow!):

“Then they killed the shepherd and drove away away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the prophet was informed … he sent some men in their pursuit … they were brought and he [Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which he heated and passed over their eyes and they were left in the Harra (rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them water till they died” (Bukhari 4:52:261).

Some Muslims have justified this savagery by saying that Muhammad “had no choice” but to gruesomely murder them because these men stole his sheep, killed the shepherd and betrayed the trust of Muslims. This stupid excuse doesn’t hold water.

First, Muhammad himself was a looter who stole other men’s property, so why couldn’t he take from them what he did to others? Second, these men were not really killed for stealing, rather for turning away from Islam.

After narrating this story, the Muslim commander Abdul Malik said asked Anas “Was that [punishment] for kufr (disbelief) or for sin [of stealing]?’ He said “for kufr” (Bukhari 4:52:50-51).

Third, Muhammad later justified this act by reciting Sura 5:33-34 which prescribed death, torture by crucifixion, maiming or banishment of anyone who opposes Islam. (Read this)

Nowhere did that Quran verse approves branding out the eyes of culprits and death by dehydration which Muhammad inflicted on the men. Technically, Muhammad went beyond Allah’s stipulated punishments.

It was unjustifiable and cruel, both by the moral standards of that time and of today. Anybody upholding this man and justifying his crimes may need to have his/her demons kicked out.

Testing the Messages


The apparitions of a living, three-dimensional lady enveloped in bright light who introduces herself as the Virgin Mary are not new.

Many visionaries and seers describe her as a beautiful, young woman glowing in radiant splendour. There have been reports of luminous clouds, glowing orbs, tongues of fire, visions of angels, mysterious solar phenomena that accompanied these apparitions.

Whether in dreams or in reality, the consensus is that the Queen of heaven has messages to deliver to the world. This is no joke.

Her shrine in Guadalupe, Mexico, (dedicated to Juan Diego who saw “Our Lady” in 1531), has an annual visit of 15-20 million followers. The war-torn Bosnia, has received an estimated 30 million pilgrims visiting the Marian shrine at Medjugorje since 1981.

The Fatima Marian shrine in Portugal receives 4.5 million yearly while the Lourdes shrine receives more than 5 million pilgrims, and Poland’s shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa draws 5 million pilgrims yearly.

Kenneth Woolward wrote in Newsweek:

“In many ways, the 20th century has belonged to Mary. From almost every continent, visionaries have reported more than 400 ‘apparitions’ of the Virgin – more than in the previous three centuries combined … Taken together, these visions point to what the Marian Movement believes is a millennial ‘Age of Mary'”.

These are not just wild, ecstatic visions in Catholic countries, but credible reports from many other countries.

In the 1960s, thousands of people saw a “lady composed of light,” holding a baby as she seems to float across the roof of a Coptic Orthodox church in Cairo, Egypt.

“Several nights each week,” wrote Ray Strant in Fatima Prophecy, “thousands of Muslims fell to their knees on prayer rugs spread wherever space permitted, and wept before the ‘magnificent, wondrous, glorious form of Our Lady from Heaven’.”

Now, if this mysterious lady is actually Mary and her messages are really from Heaven, then we need to test them with God’s Word.

The Bible commands us to “test all spirits” (1Jn. 4:1) and “Prove all things” (1Thess. 5:21). If her messages contradict God’s Word, we must reject them.

Some skeptics viscerally debunk reports of apparitions (even though the Catholic church hasn’t authenticated all of them), but an objective examination gives us reasons to believe a spirit being was indeed seen.

Nancy Fowler, a seer in Georgia, used to receive up to 100,000 visitors on her farm in one single day. These pilgrims came many great distances to hear from her, messages from the Queen of heaven.

In a certain video, two scientists investigated whether Fowler’s visions were made up or real. They reported that though she had a brain activity that looked like she was in a coma, yet she was fully alert and was able to respond. She was definitely in touch with the spirit realm.

In previous posts, the real identity of the Queen of Heaven and the miracles of Rome have been dealt with.

In 2004, Annabella Osibe in Ogoja, Cross River State (Nigeria), claimed that the “virgin Mary” appeared in her room while she was wide awake. She described seeing “an immaculate figure whose slender frame was outlined by a halo” and who had “the most adorable face I have ever seen.”

Before this vision, she was a member of Living Faith Church (a Pentecostal church) but she reverted to Catholicism afterwards. The question is: how did she know that the being she saw was really Mary? The report says:

The housewife, who had been born into a Catholic family and had herself attended Catholic schools and churches when she was young had no doubt that the figure standing before her was the Virgin Mary also known as Mary, the Mother of God” (Saturday Sun, February 17, 2007).

If I get this straight, the only criterion by which she “had no doubt” that she saw Mary was the pictures of Mary she had seen.

Who told her those were pictures of Mary? And which one out of the thousand pictures of Mary in all Catholic churches worldwide is the REAL picture of Mary? No explanation was given. All we are asked to believe is: she saw Mary. That actually proves she didn’t see Mary.

Demons are well able to appear as beautiful beings using a picture we are familiar with.

These apparitions come under different guises. When this entity appears in Africa, she looks African. When she appears in the East, she looks oriental. Her messages also vary.

When she appears to a Catholic, her messages are fully in line with Catholic beliefs. But when she appears to a New Ager for example, her messages are more New Age philosophies than rigid Catholicism.

This lends credence to the fact that there is an agenda behind the apparitions. There is a well-laid out plan from the spirit realm to enthrone her all over the world. She’s quoted saying:

Soon, I will come, my children! Soon, I will be in your midst with a great light. I will enlighten the entire world. Many souls will cry because they did not listen to my call. I will pass above everyone in a cloud and everyone will see me … I will give a great sign in the sky for those who still want to be saved” (Beckley and Crockett, Secret Prophecy of Fatima Revealed, 1991, 106-7)

In a message given to Chris Courtis in 2004 she says:

I wish to also tell you that before my apparitions end completely, I shall be seen by every denomination and religion throughout this world. I will be seen among all people, not for just a moment, but everyone will have a chance to see me.”

From the above quotes, it’s obvious that this Queen of heaven craves for worship from all over the world and this can only be realized by uniting all religions.

This desire for worship is exactly what Satan craves: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:14). This was the same thing he wanted Jesus to offer him (Matt. 4:8). Every time millions of people gather to worship this false Mary, Satan is right there.

Interestingly, “St” Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Catholic mystic, said: “Before the Second Coming of Christ, Mary must, more than ever, shine in mercy, might and grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith … Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and Mohammedans and it will be a time of great joy when Mary, as Mistress and Queen of Hearts, is enthroned” (Tetlow et al, Queen of All: Queen of Rome, Queen of Islam, Eternal Productions, 2006, 35-36).

Today, many Hindus, Buddhists and even Muslims embrace these apparitions. A Catholic magazine reported that “a Marian revival is spreading throughout Africa, with alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary finding a following among Muslims…” (The Tablet, Feb. 29, 1992).

Jesus declared: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6).

There is only one way to be saved and that is through Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter what religion a person holds on to, if he does not trust in Jesus alone and in His perfect work on the cross, he is lost eternally.

In contrast, this spirit says:

Tell this priest, tell everyone, that it is you who are divided on earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox; for the same reason as Catholics; are equal before my Son and I [sic]; You are all my children” (Richard Beyer, Medjugorge Day by Day, 1993, April 6th meditation).

The basic error underlying this “message” is how it glosses over serious differences between Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. They don’t believe in the same Mary.

The Catholic Mary was immaculately conceived; is the Mother of God; a perpetual virgin; Mediatrix and Queen of Heaven, while the Mary of Eastern Orthodoxy though sinless, wasn’t immaculately conceived.

The Mary of Islam – confused with Miriam the sister of Moses – is neither the “mother of God” nor of the Son of God (“Allah has no son” Q 4:171). This again proves that the entity giving this message is a deceiver.

The Biblical Mary, however, wasn’t sinless (Lk. 1:47), had other children (Mk. 6:3), was not the “mother of God” or the Queen of heaven. She had no leadership role among the apostles and taught no doctrine.

Don’t get me wrong, we love and honour Mary as we do the apostle Paul or Peter, but we don’t give her a place that God hasn’t given her, and nowhere in Scripture does God say He would send her to convert people’s hearts.

In an apparition in Venezuela, she said:

My children, I am giving you a piece of Heaven … It is for everyone, not only Catholics … My message is of faith, love, and hope. More than anything, it brings reconciliation between people and nations. It is the only thing that can save this century from war and eternal death.”

We don’t need peace with nations. What the Bible promises is “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1) as a free gift of God’s grace by Christ’s death. That’s the only way to be saved from eternal death.

Individual peace comes by faith to all who believe the gospel. Until Jesus comes back to reign on earth, there can be no world peace.

The Gospel is about Jesus Christ who came to pay the penalty for our sins. The penalty He paid is infinite and no human – Mary, Buddha or Muhammad – can pay it. Only Jesus as the God-Man paid for it at the cross.

Those who repent and trust in Christ and His work are saved. So, there’s no such thing as a “co-redeemer” or a “co-mediatrix” with Christ.

But in a message, this spirit said:
I stand here as the Co-Redemptrix and Advocate. Everything should be concentrated on that. Repeat this after me: The new dogma would be the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix. Until I am acknowledged there where the Most Holy Trinity has willed me to be, I will not be able to exercise my power fully in the maternal work of co-redemption and as the universal mediation of graces” (Josef Kunzli, editor, The Messages of The Lady of All Nations, 1996, 49).

This is in direct opposition to the Bible.

Revelation 5:9 “…for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue and people and nation.”

Titus 2:14 “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own…”

Psalm 31:5 “Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD God of truth.”

Nowhere does God say Mary has the power to redeem. It’s blasphemous to transfer God’s abilities to Mary. It’s even an anti-Christ teaching. The lady of Fatima declared:

I will never leave you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge, and the way that will lead you to God … Sacrifice yourself for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…” (Lucia Speaks on the Message of Fatima, 26, 29-31)

The blasphemies here are obvious. The statement “I will never leave you” was Jesus’ promise to His disciples. How can Mary do this without being omnipresent – an attribute of God alone?

She says “My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge” but that contradicts Scripture: “I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress…” (Ps. 91:2).

She says “Sacrifice yourselves…” but only Christ’s sacrifice avails for sinners (Heb 10:10-12).

She speaks of “sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary” but our sins are committed against God, not Mary. David said to God: “Against you, you only, have I sinned…” (Psa. 51:4).

She also said:

Each of My statues is a sign of a presence of Mine and reminds you of your heavenly Mother. Therefore it must be honoured and put in places of greater veneration…” (Fr. Don Gobbi, To The Priests, Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, 1998, 383).

Since there are thousands of statues of Mary worldwide, for her presence to be in each of them, she would have to be omnipresent.

Even Catholics are aware that some images of “Mary” exhibit more power than the rest. In Italy, for instance, there are different “Madonnas.” Some are believed to protect children or help with specific occupations. Seekers can drive for miles, bypassing several images of “Mary” until they reach the one they think can help them the most.

In the cathedral of Chartres, France, only 3 out of many images of Mary are said to be powerful – Our Lady of the Crypt, Our Lady of the Pillar and Our Lady of the Belle Verriere. Why? Because there are demons behind these statues and their power levels differ.

This demonic entity is sometimes accompanied by a helpless, little baby, said to be “Jesus”. This happened at Fatima:

On the 10th of December, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia, with the Child Jesus by Her side, elevated on a cloud of light” (Lucia Speaks: The Message of Fatima, 1968, 46).

Jesus Christ has ascended to heaven in His glorified body and is now at the right hand of the Father. But it defies all bounds of rational thought and reality to imagine that Christ is still a baby accompanying His mother.

Jesus is coming back as a Man, not a baby. “Then people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk. 13:26)

“…Jesus, who was taken from you to heaven will come back in the same way that you saw him go to heaven” (Acts 1:11)

The Lord Jesus made it clear that the last days will be characterised by great deception. Much of this will be spectacular miraculous signs and the promotion of a false Christ that may deceive even the elect.

The Bible also warns that even if an angel descends from heaven to preach a gospel contrary to the one taught in the Bible, let him be condemned.

We therefore, we reject the messages and signs of the Queen of heaven as deceitful and diabolical (Gal. 1:8). Come out of her, God’s people and be no partaker of her evils.

Is Rome the Infallible Bible Interpreter?

images (1)~2.jpeg

Sometimes, when you confront the errors of Rome with the Bible, some Catholics will likely respond saying:

“What makes your interpretation of the Bible infallible? Are you an authentic interpreter of the Bible?”

Marcus Grodi, a Catholic convert, also employed this rhetoric device:

All of this wrangling [over] how to interpret Scripture gets one nowhere if there is no way to know with infallible certitude that one’s interpretation is the right one. The teaching authority of the Church in the magisterium [is] centered around the seat of Peter. If I could accept this doctrine, I knew I could trust the Church on everything else” (Surprised by Truth, 1994, p. 56).

There are several weaknesses in this claim.

(I) The Catholic assumes that the Bible is so cryptic, so confusing and esoteric, that one needs to be “infallible” in order to understand or interpret it.

To them, we can’t even understand a verse like Matthew 24:1 “Jesus left the temple and was walking away when the disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings,” unless we are infallible.

But the Berean Christians didn’t have an infallible church to guide them as they “examined the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11). Reason? They didn’t need to be infallible to understand the Scriptures.

When Jesus chastised the Sadducees for being in error and held them accountable to what God has said to them in Matthew 22:31, why did the Sadducees not respond, “We didn’t have an authentic interpreter of the Bible?” Because one doesn’t need an “infallible church” to know God’s Word!

II. Rome has a problem with the Bible. They described it as, “A dumb and difficult book [which] was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, p. 11).

The Roman Catholic institution doesn’t want the Bible which God gave to all of mankind to speak to each person. Not only that, the role of the Holy Spirit in enlightening each Believer to Scripture has been totally eradicated and replaced with the Church (pope and bishops).

So, to a Catholic, the Holy Spirit is just like a theological abstraction or a sentence at the end of the Apostles’ Creed. But the Holy Spirit has been given to every Believer, and He’s not just a bystander, He’s a Teacher.

Romans 8:9, 16 “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his … For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God…

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 “But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God

If all Christians are “led by the Spirit of God,” then they must be able to understand the Scriptures inspired by God’s Spirit.

Since Christians have received the Spirit of God and have “the mind of Christ” (1Cor. 2:16), we don’t need a church Magisterium to understand or interpret the Bible. This is a truth that Rome hates.

III. The doctrine of the “infallible interpreter” implies that God didn’t make Himself clear in His Word. It assumes that God gave us a revelation that still needs revealing or failed in His attempt to give man a revelation.

It’s ludicrous to teach that God inspired infallible Scripture yet denied to all except an elite few, the ability to understand it, requiring billions of people to surrender their minds to a hierarchy by blindly accepting their interpretation of His Word.

If “the entrance of His word gives light and understanding unto the simple” (Ps. 119:130) then one doesn’t need the Pope to know what it says.

If the Holy Spirit can convince the world “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement” then surely He can teach all those in whom He dwells (John 16:8).

Apostle John says that the Christians to whom he writes don’t have to look up to a class of men for teaching but have an “anointing [of the Holy Spirit which] teaches you all things” (1 Jn. 2:27).

Sadly, the very book that should bring life and freedom to Catholics have been spiritually chained out of their reach.

IV. Popular Catholic apologists teach their fans that anytime someone shows how Catholic doctrines contradict the Bible, they should dismiss it by saying, “That’s your fallible interpretation.”

This is obfuscation by rhetoric. Catholics who use this line have two priori assumptions:

(a) That the Bible is too complicated – This is untrue. In fact, a non-Christian can exegete a Bible verse and comprehend a passage in its context.

The difference is that his understanding will not have the Holy Spirit’s illumination and his conclusion would be the deadness of the letter.

(b) That only the Catholic Magisterium can interpret the Bible – This is also false.

Respected Catholic scholars have even denied this, thus forcing the Catholic himself to resort to excessive amounts of private interpretation:

A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church” (Providentissmus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture [Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Nov 18, 1893]).

Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” (Dom Bernard Orchard M.A.; ed, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, p. 60).

If the Catholic church has not yet given her followers the infallible interpretation of the Bible, but “a wide field is still left open” that virtually everyone can share the pasture, then it’s a spiritual tragedy to look up to them for any guidance.

Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown even stated:

“To the best of my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible” (The Critical Meaning of the Bible, New York: Paulist Press, 1981, 40).

Yet Catholics are told by pop apologists that their church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. We refuse to submit to such duplicity.

V. Since the Magisterium hasn’t infallibly interpreted most of the Bible, on what basis then do Catholics trot out Bible texts at will?

Why, for instance, don’t Catholic apologists go to debates with the Catechism or the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, but rather go around with that “dumb and difficult Book” that no one can understand outside of Rome?

If these guys have the hotline to God through the living voice of the Mother Church, why do they use the Bible or even quote it? Doesn’t that make you a bit suspicious?

Devin Rose, in his book The Protestant Dilemma wrote:

“We know that Christ established a Church visible and unified, to which he gave his divine authority. In Matthew’s Gospel, we read that ‘he called to him his twelve apostles and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out and to heal all diseases and every infirmity.’ (Matt 10:1). But according to Protestantism, this authority must have been lost when the visible Church became morally and doctrinally corrupt.”

So here we have a lay apologist using his private judgement of the text to tell us “we know that Christ established…” Has his Magisterium given him an infallible interpretation of that verse? No. That’s his fallible opinion.

The text also shows that the authority Christ gave His apostles was to cast out demons and heal the sick. Until the Magisterium of the Catholic church starts going to demon possessed folks or hospitals to cast out demons and heal the sick, they should discard this spoof text.

This Catholic even assumes that everywhere the Bible mentions the apostles of Christ, it must be referring to the Roman Catholic Church! Such a giant leap is a Catholic dilemma.

VI. If the Old Testament saints didn’t need a magisterium, why should it be necessary for New Testament saints?

Some Catholics appeal to “the seat of Moses” mentioned in Matthew 23:2. Aside from the fact that their idea of Moses’ seat is wrong (it’s referring to the seat from where the teachers read the Law, not the chair of a pope), for Catholics to use this text, they will first have to explain how the “Jewish Magisterium” could fallibly pass on the Corban rule which Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13.

And they must also explain how and where the Jewish Magisterium “magically” became the Roman Catholic magisterium.

VII. Rome forbids Catholics from using their private judgement in understanding the Bible, yet many Catholic converts used their private judgement and reasoning in whatever they read to arrive at Rome.

But once they get into the circle, they are mandated to give up their private judgement and submit to the Rome. Eric Svendsen pointed this out:

“The fact is, he had to engage in the very same principle of private judgment that we all must use to decide among the various options; namely, a thinking, objective reasoning process apart from reliance upon the system to which he would eventually subscribe… The Roman Catholic cannot introduce a double standard at this point and still be consistent.” (Upon This Slippery Rock, New York: Calvary Press, 2002, p. 34)

VIII. We’re not infallible, neither are Catholics. But if they claim their church (or pope) is infallible, then how did fallible Catholics “know” this?

Their claim of an infallible church is their own fallible opinion. How do fallible Catholics even infallibly understand and interpret Rome’s infallible teachings?

Catholic lay apologists are the most interesting to watch. On the one hand they attack private judgement, but in reality, their lives depend on it because their church is infected with liberalism.

Steve Ray refers to the “pitiful additions and deletions to the sacred liturgy, or priests who think they are 2,000 years smarter than Jesus, the gospel writers and the holy popes” and hope “never to have to endure another such arrogant and foolish homily.”

This dude must be competent to interpret the Bible more correctly than his liberal seminary-trained priests.

Karl Keating of Catholic Answers complains that “many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral, some priests speak as though Mary had one child while others imply she was the mother of the ‘brethren of the Lord.”

Catholic apologist, Bob Sungenis too admits:

“Today’s Catholic scholars took over where the Protestant liberals left off at the turn of the 20th century, and they are much worse than the Protestant liberals ever were. They simply do not have the traditional faith of our Fathers and medievals any longer.”

It’s gratifying to learn that the same Magisterium they are asking us to submit to have abandoned their own theology! These guys live in a context of contradictions.

IX. If an institution claims to be “infallible,” it musn’t contradict itself or make any blunder. Like God-breathed Scripture, it must be perfect and not contradict itself. Does Rome meet up to this criteria? Here are some blunders:

(a) Traditionally, the magisterium emphasised the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, extending to its factual inerrancy.

This doctrine was sustained by Vatican I, Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors and Benedict XV. But later in an encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, Pius XII made allowance for Bible criticism which opened the door to a de-historical reading of Bible narratives.

Vatican II, however, stripped the Bible of its authenticity by affirming only a partial inspiration.

(b) Rome condemned Galileo’s view of heliocentricity in the 17th century, and forced him to recant his views before the Holy Office. Yet centuries later, they realized he was right and affirmed heliocentricity in 1992.

(c) The belief in Limbo was affirmed in the 12th century and was defended all through the Middle Ages. Several “visions” of Mary had even called for prayers for the babies on Limbo, yet in 2007, the Vatican smoothly discarded the belief and declared Limbo non-existent. The word has quietly disappeared from the recent catechism.

(d) In its canonical list, the Council of Trent mistakenly attributes the composition of the book of James to the Apostle rather than the Lord’s brothers. This error has been discarded by modern Catholic scholars.

(e) The Council of Trent also codifies Paul as the author of Hebrews, yet this cannot be sustained on either internal or external grounds and has been discarded by modern Catholic scholarship (See Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 1999, 460-61).

(f) In the papal bull “Unam Sanctum,” Boniface VIII declared that there is only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sin and made submission to the pope necessary for salvation.

This position was codified by the councils of Florence and Lateran IV. But in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16) and also in Pope Benedict XVI’s book, God and the World, the actual salvation of non-Catholics and even non-Christians is admitted. Pope Francis has perfected this universalism to a tee.

(g) According to Vatican II, the universal consensus of the laity cannot err in matters of faith and morals (LG, 12).

Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae,” declared artificial birth control as inherently evil. This position is reaffirmed in the Catechism (2366-2370), yet this teaching has provoked the most uniform dissent on the part of the laity (not to talk of the priests and theologians). So which side is valid?

(h) In 1590, Pope Sixtus V issued an edition of the Vulgate accompanied by a bull in which he endorsed it with apostolic fullness as an irreformable text.

But this Sistine edition was so riddled with errors that it had to be withdrawn from circulation after his death and a revised edition was issued under Pope Clement VIII. How can Rome be infallible?

(i) In the Tridentine canon on Confirmation, no appeal is made either to Scripture or tradition.

They also appealed to Gen. 2:23 in defense of marriage. But this appeal would show that marriage was a creation mandate rather than a sacramental institution. Besides, Rome now regards the first two chapters of Genesis as allegory.

(j) According to a Catholic historian:

“Innocent I and Gelasius … declared it to be so indispensable for infants to receive communion that those who died without it go straight to hell. A thousand years later the Council of Trent anathemised this doctrine.” (The Pope and the Council, 1870, 42).

All these show us that Roman Catholicism is not an infallible, Bible-interpreting institution.