The Lies of the Prophet

images (2)

Islam is based on the fallacy of circular reasoning. For instance, Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet of God because he said Allah said he is a prophet of God according to the Quran.

Or they say the Quran is divine because Muhammad said Allah said it is the Word of God and Allah is God according to the Quran. It’s a vicious circle that almost never ends.

However, we can break through this circle. Since no one – except Muhammad – ever saw Allah and no one ever saw his Quran descend from the sky, that leaves us with a central figure – prophet Muhammad himself.

All what Muslims believe about God, Jesus Christ, man, death, the afterlife come from Muhammad, with the blind faith that he never lied.

So, once it is shown that Muhammad was not only a liar, but also a deceiver, the entire construct of Islamic beliefs falls to the ground.

Muslims claim that Muhammad was a very sincere man – so sincere that even his enemies called him “Al-Amin” (the trustworthy one). Besides, he suffered much persecution; if he was a fraud, why would he endure persecutions?

The claim that Muhammad suffered persecution is quite debatable. Even at that, sincerity and persecution are not indicators of true prophethood, or Muslims would also have to believe Joseph Smith, Baha’ullah, Elijah Mohammed and Mirza Ghulam were prophets of God.

Baha’ullah was imprisoned for 20 years; Mirza Ghulam endured scorn and ridicule; Rashad Khalifa was martyred – because they all  dared to claim to be Allah’s prophets. If they were frauds, why did they endure persecution?

Of course, they were false prophets because they gave conflicting teachings about God, salvation and man. In fact, no Muslim can accept them as prophets because they believe Muhammad was the last messenger. A person can be sincere and yet sincerely deceived.

Muslims desperately appeal to the hadith in which Abu Sofyan (Muhammad’s enemy) allegedly met with the Byzantium emperor, Heraclius, saying that Muhammad never told a lie but always kept his word:

He [Heraclius] said ‘had you blamed him for telling lies before he claimed what he claimed? I replied ‘No’… He said ‘does he break his promises?’ I replied ‘No, but we are now at a truce with him and we are afraid that he may betray us … [Heraclius said:] ‘a person who did not tell a lie about (others) the people would never tell a lie about Allah…” (Bukhari 4:52:191).

The authenticity of this report is suspect. These hadiths were written by Muslims over 150 years after Muhammad’s death, and during these periods, certain statements and stories were fabricated to elevate Muhammad to the status of a demi-god.

Since this alleged statement of Heraclius is not corroborated by written records of Muhammad’s contemporaries, they were obviously fraudulent.

Others cite the part where Muhammad asked his followers if they would believe him if he told them that horsemen emerged out of the foot of the mountain. They all replied: “We have not experienced any lie from you” (Muslim 1:406).

What else would brainwashed followers say? This does not in any way prove Muhammad was a beacon of truth. This is as valid as quoting the diary of a disciple of guru Maharaji to prove he is a living deity.

The Quran records the assessments of non-Muslims about Muhammad.

And they say: ‘O you [Muhammad] to whom the diki (the Quran) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man. Why do you not bring angels to us if you are of the truthful ones?” (Sura 15:6)

But the misbelievers say ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged.” (Sura 25:4)

“…They (the disbelievers) say: You (O Muhammad) are but a forger…” (Sura 16:101)

And if they call you a liar, say: My work is for me and your work is for you.” (Sura 10:41)

Muslims can dismiss these as “false allegations of infidels” all they want, but that won’t solve the problem. The appeal to the words of non-Muslims cuts both ways.

If the statement of Heraclius supports Muhammad’s integrity, the statements of other disbelievers equally prove he was a man of subtlety. This is consistency.

A good person brings out what is stored up in him. The teachings of a honest man should reflect the virtues of truth and integrity. But what did Muhammad teach?

If thou fearest treachery from any group throw back (their covenant) to them (so as to be) on equal terms; for Allah loves not the treacherous” (Sura 8:58)

That is, Muslims are to break whatever covenant or truce they make with non-Muslims. They first imagine treachery from the other party, then, without any proof, go ahead and act treacherous because Allah hates the treacherous!

This teaching in itself is deceitful. How can Allah hate what he permits Muslims to do?

Sura 9:3 says “Allah and his messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”

This is, he (and by extension, all Muslims) is not under any obligation to keep to any truce with non-Muslims.

Speaking to his followers who take an oath and then see an alternative “then you should expiate your oath and do what is better” (Bukhari 9:89:260). This is definitely his own ethic because elsewhere said:

By Allah and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath” (Bukhari 7:67:427). Such nice teachings from “the trustworthy one.”

In another place, he makes his Allah say:

Allah will not call you to account for the thoughtlessness in your oaths but for the intentions in your heart” (Bukhari 2:225).

While Allah doesn’t hold Muslims accountable to their thoughtless actions or breaking of vows, the God of the Bible holds His people seriously to their promises and vows (Num. 30:2, Eccl. 5:2-6).

He said again:

Lying is wrong except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy for war, for war is deception or to settle trouble between people” (Ahmad Musnad, 6:65).

Kab ibn Malik narrated that:

When the Prophet intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else and he would say: ‘War is deception” (Sunan Abu Dawud 14:26:29).

One of his followers, Ammar ibn Yasar, pretended to despise Muhammad and Islam in order to gain the approval of the pagans of Mecca. It worked and Muhammad endorsed his deception (Kitab al-Waqidi, 227).

Now, why would a honest and trustworthy man endorse lying, deception and treachery? With such moral credentials, Muhammad is disqualified from being a true prophet.

Muslim jurist, Ahmad ibn Naqib, wrote that:

“When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying, by not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is possible” (Reliance of the Traveller, 8:2:745).

Now, think about the influence of these teachings on Muslims immersed deeply in Islam.

If they sign a contract with you, they will break it without blinking an eye.

They can swear about a thing today and go against that oath the next day.

They can’t be trusted with promises, pledges or whatever they say.

This explains why Muslims lie about loyalty to their host countries, about Islam, about Muhammad and what they really believe.

Outright Lies in the Quran

Now, let’s take a look at the lies in the Quran which point at the lying skills of the founder of Islam.

The Quran narrates the story of the army of Abraha who were defeated by Allah. How did Allah pull this off? He made birds drop clay stones from their beaks on the armies until they were all mowed down (Sura 105:1-6)!

Subhanallah, isn’t Allah great?

Historically, this refers to the armies of Abraha al-Ashram (d. 553) who invaded Mecca around the time Muhammad was born. His army withdrew from Mecca when smallpox broke out among his troops.

Muhammad being an illiterate, thought the scabs on their skins were clay stones, so he weaved in the birds-with-claystones scenario.

Sura 17:1 says Allah took Muhammad on an astral travel from Mecca to the farthest mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa) in Jerusalem.

But this mosque was not built until 59 years after Muhammad died (i.e. in 691 AD). And the Jewish temple that originally stood at that site had been destroyed in 70 AD – five centuries before Muhammad. So which “mosque” did Muhammad visit?

In Sura 25:35, Allah/Muhammad bragged:

And certainly We gave Musa [Moses] the Book and We appointed with his brother Haroun [Aaron] an aider. Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications: so we destroyed them with utter destruction.”

Moses and Aaron were sent to Egypt and Israel but neither the Egyptians nor the Israelites were completely destroyed. These nations have continued to exist till today.

Muhammad was obviously so carried away with his scare mongering tactics that he lost wind of facts. So, a little lie here and a little lie there, and a big religious book is made.

Allah’s Lies

Sura 3:54 says: “And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned and Allah schemed also and the best of schemers is Allah.”

The Arabic word “makr” slyly translated as “scheme” means “deceive.” Correctly rendered, the last part says “and the best of deceivers is Allah.”

How could God be “the best of deceivers?” Is deception not an attribute of Satan? This was where the mask fell off Allah’s face.

In Sura 19:26, Allah tells Mary to lie to people that she was fasting when she was actually eating dates and drinking water.

In Sura 8:43, Allah says he deceived Muhammad’s men to see their opponents as few when they weren’t.

Allah even claims he deceived Jews and Christians to think Jesus was crucified (Sura 4:157).

Islam revolves around a lying prophet, a lying book and a lying god. And the lies even overlapped.

Muhammad is quoted as saying at a point:

“I have fabricated things against God and I have imputed to him words which he has not spoken” (The Biography of Tabari, 4:111).

So as Allah was lying, his prophet too was lying. If a man can lie against his own deity and put words in his mouth, what stops him from putting fictional speeches into the mouths of Bible characters like Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses Mary or Jesus Christ to support his own bogus religion?

How can his teachings on God, sin, heaven, or the afterlife be taken as the truth and nothing but the truth?

Once you submit to a lie, you become its slave and you become a putty in the hands of a con man. Lies are powerful and they all come from Satan, “the Father of lies” (Jn. 8:44).

But you can be freed from the lies of a charlatan and his lying deity – no matter how long they have enslaved you. Come to Jesus Christ who is “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14) and let Him be your Saviour and Lord.

Are the Popes Infallible?

The key of control Rome wields over millions of Catholics lies in papal infallibility. This belief was officially declared at the Vatican I Council:

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he discharges his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, and, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals that is to be held by the universal church, through divine assistance promised him in St. Peter, exercises that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed to endow his church” (Denzinger, Enchiridium Symbolorum, 1963, 3074).

Papal infallibility means that the pope, by the reason of his office, cannot err when he speaks in matters of faith or morals. Thus, his words are irreformable and infallible.

The Vatican II council modified the absolutism of the papacy by giving authority to the bishops. Thus, Catholic bishops can also exercise infallibility through their “bond of communion” with the pope, and when they assemble in an ecumenical council.

From the claims of Vatican I above, it’s clear that papal infallibility is hinged on false assumptions. This is why it has generated more controversy among Catholic theologians and scholars than any other dogma cooked up by Rome. According to a Catholic work:

“From medieval times, there have been disagreements about the nature, the recipients, the exercise, and the applicability of the charism of infallibility; such controversy could be anticipated, insofar as the working of divine grace in the life of the church remains a mystery that surpasses human comprehension and expression” (The New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Joseph Komonchak, 2006, p. 518)

Rather than burying the controversy with a cliche like “mystery that surpasses human comprehension,” Catholics should face the facts. The heated debates generated by infallibility raise a point: those who opposed it have the ground of history, Scripture and tradition to stand on.

Even Popes like Vigilius (537-55), Clement IV (1265-8), Gregory XI (1370-8), Paul IV (1555-9), Adrian VI (1522-3) and Innocent III (1198-1216) rejected the dogma.

A Catholic scholar, Ignaz von Dollinger, commenting on Luke 22:32 wrote:

“It is directly against the sense of the passage … to find in it a promise of future infallibility to a succession of Popes … No single writer to the end of the seventh century dreamt of such an interpretation; all without exception – and there are eighteen of them – explain it simply as a prayer of Christ that his Apostle might not wholly succumb and lose his faith entirely in his approaching trial” (The Pope and the Council, 1869, 65-66).

Granted, no one who lets the Bible speak for itself would arrive at the idea that a human being is infallible because of a certain office.

For instance, if the words of Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:18 made him the first infallible pope, then this is a disaster, because the next word that came out of Peter’s mouth was a denial of a crucial part of the Gospel, declaring that Jesus will not go to the cross: “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” (v. 22).

The Lord responded immediately, rebuking the Devil speaking through him: “Get behind me, Satan!” (v. 23). Here was Peter’s first ex cathedra declaration to the whole church on faith and morals, yet it was not an infallible speech, but a deadly heresy!

If Matthew 16:18 proves Peter to be a Pope, then Matthew 16:23 proves him to be an anti Christ (or Satan). It is a sword that cuts both ways. It’s interesting then, how volumes of books have been churned out by Catholic clergy and laity based on Matthew 16:18, yet there is curious silence about Matthew 16:23.

In Matthew 17, Peter made another erroneous statement. He equated Christ with Moses and Elijah: “If you wish I will put up three shelters – one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” (vs 4).

This time, God from heaven rebuked the ‘first pope’: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (VS. 5)

Later, Peter “began to curse and to swear, saying I know not the man [Christ]” (26:74). This was another ex cathedra declaration of the “new pope” to the whole church – right? Here is the point, there was no way Peter could have passed on to successors an infallibility which he himself didn’t possess! If Peter was the rock, he was far too unstable for the church to be built on him.

Considering the morally deplorable lives many of the popes led, the idea of infallibility becomes slippery. Modern Catholic apologists argue that evil popes didn’t have impeccability, but still had infallibility. How they manage to sustain this ridiculous dichotomy is amazing.

Heresy comes in two forms – doctrinal and moral. 1 Timothy 6:3 says: “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching.” This refers to doctrinal heresy.

A doctrinal heretic is one who denies or rejects sound Christian teachings. He could appear to be a moral person, but he is still a heretic.

Moral heresy is when a person lives contrary to sound Christian principles. “They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him” (Titus 1:16). A moral heretic may know or even teach sound Christian doctrines, but he denies them with his lifestyle. A moral heretic usually espouses doctrinal heresies to justify his sins.

It takes a level of blind loyalty and foolishness to believe that an immoral man who denies the faith daily with his evils becomes infallible when he speaks of faith and morals. Yet, the Catholic Encyclopedia on “Councils” says: “A sinful pope … remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.”

There you have it: cultic loyalty. Even when an evil pope sits in Rome, he must still be obeyed. If infallibility cannot keep the popes from evil or heresy, what purpose does it then serve other than tyranny?

Origins of the Dogma

Catholics claim that papal infallibility “was implicit in the early Church.” They even quote Cyprian. But I wonder if they agree with what he said here:

For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgement...” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:2)

Augustine is also quoted by Catholic apologists saying: “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.”

This quote is out of context. Augustine wasn’t proposing a blind submission to Rome. Two synods had ruled on a disputed matter and the bishop of Rome had concurred, so Augustine agreed to put the matter to rest. Nowhere did he suggest that a judgement was conclusive simply because it came from Rome. Concerning Augustine, Patrologist, J. N. D Kelly wrote:

“At the same time there is no evidence that he was prepared to ascribe to the bishop of Rome, in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, a sovereign and infallible magisterium … Nor was he willing, in practical matters, to surrender one jot of the disciplinary independence of the African church which Cyprian had defended so stoutly in his day. The truth is that the doctrine of Roman primacy played only a minor role in his ecclesiology, as also in his personal religious thinking” (Early Christian Doctrines, MA: Prince Press, 2003, 419).

Papal infallibility didn’t slowly “develop,” rather it was swiftly made up in the late 1200s by Peter Olivi, a Franciscan priest who was accused of heresy.

At that time, Pope Nicholas (1277-80) had favoured the Franciscans by declaring that renunciation of property was a way to attain salvation. Olivi, obviously motivated by selfishness, proposed that such papal pronouncements were infallible. This was a radical belief at that time.

Pope John XXII (1315-34) who hated the Franciscans’ poverty vows attacked Olivi’s theory and produced a document Qui quorundum in 1324, denouncing the doctrine of papal infallibility as “the work of the Devil.” Brian Tierney explains:

“At the beginning of the fourteenth century … the nature of the church’s inerrancy was still ill-defined. The idea that the pope might be personally infallible was too novel, too contrary to all traditional teaching, to find any widespread acceptance” (Origin of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Leiden, Netherlands, 1972, p. 144).

Later on, when the popes fully became successors of the pagan emperors who claimed to be gods, infallibility began to find an appeal. But they needed to revise history; they needed a ‘backup’ for it. According to a scholar:

“This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents … Some of the periods in question, such as the pontification of Sylvester (314-355) and Liberius (352-366) were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because the authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained” (Roger Collins, Keeper of the Keys, Basic Books, 2009, 80-81).

At last, infallibility was made an official dogma by Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council I on December 8, 1869. It’s understandable why Pius IX toed this line. He needed the infallibility doctrine for his own ends. He was opposed to democracy and individual freedom.

The infallibility dogma was his desperate tool to maintain the dominion of Roman Catholicism over world governments and their citizens. He used his despotic office to intimidate the bishops present at the council to make this belief official.

Can Heretics be Infallible?

It is claimed that papal infallibility “prevents a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as truth something that is, in fact an error.” In Catholic theology, heresy is a mortal sin and its penalty is instant and automatic excommunication.

If Catholics are going to be consistent with their arguments, they will have to agree that once a pope commits the sin of heresy, he has denied the faith and is no more a member of the Church, let alone its head. So the idea that there is an “unbroken line” of apostolic succession back to Peter crumbles.

Many popes were rank heretics denounced by councils and contradicted by other popes.

Pope Stephan exhumed the corpse of a previous pope Formosus months after his burial, tried his cadaver and found him guilty of having crowned a wrong emperor. He declared all of his ordinations invalid.

Yet John IX, who succeeded Stephen VI condemned his decisions against Formosus, then another Pope Sergius III approved Stephen’s decree. Infallibility? Please cut the joke.

Pope Vigilius (537-55) changed his mind on doctrine several times till he was finally declared a heretic and excommunicated.

Pope Honorius (625-38) denied the nature of Christ and was condemned as a heretic by the 6th ecumenical council. You can’t be condemned by an “infallible council” and claim infallibility.

Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid, but Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid.

Pope Clement XIV issued a decree in 1773 to suppress the Jesuits, but pope Pius VII reversed this decree in 1814 restoring the Jesuits.

Pope Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arc to be burned as a heretic and a witch, but Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) declared her a saint in 1920. How can two “infallible popes” contradict each other?

Pope John XXII, a mass murderer, shed so much blood that “would have incardinated the waters of Lake Constance [an extremely large lake], and the bodies of the slain would have bridged it from shore to shore” (De Rosa, The Darkside of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p. 180).

This pope was also said to have been visited by “our Lady of Mount Carmel” who promised him that she would visit purgatory to release all those who wear her brown scapular. John XXII was finally denounced as a heretic by Emperor Louis of Bavaria who deposed him and appointed another pope in his place. Yet, today, millions of Catholics still lend credence to the authority of the visions of their heretic pope.

Modern popes are not far behind.

Pope John Paul II issued a letter in 2003 stating that Catholics are “obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions” and where such laws are made a “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.”

But Pope Francis on March 5, 2014 backpedals on gay marriage saying, “We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”

Retired pope Benedict XVI once issued a letter that “homosexual acts … do not proceed from a genuine affection and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved.”

But Pope Francis in his Synod on the Family (2014) stated that gays and lesbians have “gifts and qualities to offer the Christian communities.” He even welcomed a transgender and a gay activist to the Vatican.

When pope Francis endorsed non-Christian religions as gifts from God, Louie Verrecchio a Catholic, wrote:

Now that is hubris. Imagine, a pope daring to profess to the world that false religions, those that honor false gods and cannot save, the same that supplant the worship due as the first demand of justice to Our Lord, is a gift. A gift! This is terrible, terrible offense against God and a gross distortion of the faith of the Church. It also endangers the souls of many. How can a faithful Catholic not combat such poisonous prose as this? Is one constrained simply because it comes from a pope? Certainly not”

All through the centuries, popes have taught grievous errors and committed perversities, which gives the infallibility belief away as a big fraud. Only God is infallible. To accord this attribute to anyone else is blasphemy.

The Perpetual Virginity: Facts To Consider


The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity says that she remained a virgin till the end of her life. The Catholic Catechism explains:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever virgin” (1: 499).

Many Catholics ask why we do not hold to this dogma. The reason is simple: it lacks a justifiable evidence, so it would be irrational and irresponsible to believe it.

It’s just like someone asking me if I believe in the tooth fairies and I answer “No,” and I’m being told to “prove it.” Prove what? The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the existence of tooth fairies.

I don’t believe in them for the simple reason that there is no credible evidence to support their existence. I don’t have to produce an evidence against their existence.

The same applies to the perpetual virginity dogma. It’s the Catholics making the claim who need to prove it. Evangelicals are not under any obligation to disprove a dogma for which there’s no evidence in the first place.

However, we can point to several facts that invalidate this belief showing that it can only be believed by those deeply committed to Rome’s fiction.

1. God had predicted that Mary would have other children and the Messiah would have brothers:

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children” (Psa. 69:8-9).

The perpetual virginity dogma can only be sustained by ignoring this Bible prophecy.

2. If the birth of Jesus didn’t “diminish his mother’s virginal integrity” as the above quote says, then what does this denote?

Does it mean that Jesus passed through the birth canal without rupturing the hymen? Did He temporarily dematerialize or was it the hymen that momentarily dematerialized for this to be possible?

Let’s suppose that Jesus was born without passing through the birth canal, how then was He born?  Was it through a miraculous C-section or teleportation?

To suggest that Jesus circumvented the normal birthing process is Biblically objectionable.

3. Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn son” (Matt. 1:25) and the natural conclusion is that she had other children.

The Greek word for firstborn (prototokos) is used in that text. If Jesus had been the only son Mary had, the Greek word used would have been monogenes which means “only.” It occurs as “only son” (Lk. 7:12) “only daughter” (Lk. 8:42) or “only child” (Lk. 9:38) in the NT.

4. The Gospels plainly state that Jesus had four brothers (mentioned by name) and at least 3 sisters (Mt. 13:55,56; Mk. 6:3).

Catholic apologists usually quote Jerome, who claimed that these were actually Christ’s cousins.

It is argued that Matthew and Mark had to use the Greek word for brother/sister (adelphos/adelphai) because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word for “cousin” and the Jews had the custom of referring to all relatives as brothers/sisters.

They cite examples from the Septuagint, but none from the New Testament, because there are none.

There are two Greek words used for cousins in the NT: anepsios and sungenis. Neither of them were used in Matthew 13:22-56.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Greek words adelphos and adelphai “have the full meaning of full brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Towards the end of the 4th century (c. 380), Helvidius in a work now lost, pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of large families. St Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383)…” (Vol. IX, 337)

5. If the Bible writers used the words for relatives and brothers interchangeably, the Greek word syggenon would have been used in Luke 21:16, not adelphoi.

In Colossians 4:10, anepsios was rightly used for Barnabas’ cousin, so the Catholic argument doesn’t stand. The facts show that “cousins” and “brothers” were not used interchangeably.

If the word “mother” is taken literally in Matthew 13:55-56, why not the word “brethren?” Catholics can only resort to such semantic acrobatics because of their commitment to perpetual virginity in spite of contrary evidence.

6. Mary and her other children are introduced as “His mother and His brethren” (Mt. 12:46-50, Mk. 3:31, Jn. 2:12), indicating that they were her children in her care, or if grown, travelling with her as part of the immediate family.

There is no way that the children of some other woman would be following Mary as “His brethren.”

7. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it wasn’t really a marriage after all, but an extended betrothal.

Some Catholic scholars claim that Mary’s perpetual virginity is the hallmark of celibacy. How did this happen? If she took a vow of virginity and then married Joseph, this would have amounted to treachery and contempt on the marriage covenant.

Even Catholicism does not allow a wife to take a vow of continence at her own pleasure. This would also have contradicted the Bible that state that marital conjugal duties are God-ordained (1 Cor. 7:21-24, Heb. 13:4).

When Mary said to the angel “How can this be since I know not a man,” she was only referring to her condition at that time (Lk. 1:34).

8. Perhaps the most outstanding proof against Mary’s perpetual virginity is the “until” clause in Matthew 1:25. Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born.

The Greek word here is eos ou and it’s used also in Matt. 17:3, Luke 24:4a. It refers to a point in time when the action of the main verb comes to an end.

For instance, the appearance of Moses and Elijah and the angels at the tomb was only for a limited situation. The event later reversed itself.

In the same vein, Joseph didn’t know Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, then they had sexual relations. To suggest he kept her a virgin all through her life is illogical.

9. Some Catholic apologists quote the apocryphal Apocalypse of James to support this dogma. Of course James wasn’t the author of that legend, it’s just a desperate tool Rome is forced to utilize.

James is called “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) and the Bible says “His brethren” didn’t believe in Him until after His resurrection (Jn. 7:3-10, Acts 1:14). Certainly, these “brethren” were the other children Mary had.

Even Josephus the historian, affirms that Jesus had at least one brother:

“He (Ananus) converted the council of judges and brought it before the brother of Jesus – the one called ‘Christ’ – whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the Law, he delivered them up for stoning” (Antiquities 20.9-1, 200-201).

Quoting the opinions of some church fathers as support proves nothing. They didn’t conduct a pelvic examination for Mary. Some of them, like Origen, Tertullian and Victorinus even rejected the perpetual virginity belief.

Yes, some of the Reformers held to this heresy, but Protestants don’t base their beliefs “on the consent of the Reformers” neither do we hold them as infallible.

The perpetual virginity doctrine wasn’t taught until about 5 centuries after Christ and it was not until the Lateran Council (649 A.D.) that it became an official belief.

10. The legend that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage is self-refuting. If Jesus wasn’t the firstborn of Joseph, he would never had been the legal stepfather of Jesus, and Jesus’ human ancestry would not have been traced through Joseph (Mt. 1:16).

If Joseph had children before Jesus was born, then He couldn’t be the legal heir to David’s throne, which went by law to the firstborn.

The reason Rome persists in this doctrine is because it’s too deeply rooted to be weeded out.

It was a doctrine aimed at modelling the Catholic Mary after old pagan virgin goddesses like the Egyptian Isis, the Greek Artemis, the German Hertha, the Etruscan Nutria and the Druid Virgo Partitura (also called the “Mother of God“).

One common thread running through these goddess figures was their designation as the virgin queen of heaven who bore fruit although they never conceived. This pagan corruption was assimilated into the church of Rome gradually.

According to a writer, “the ancient portrait of Isis and child Horus was ultimately accepted not only in popular opinion, but by formal episcopal sanction, as the portrait of the Virgin and her child” (Homer Smith, Man and His Gods, Brown & Co, 1952, 216).

Neopagans and Wiccans today often signify the virgin phase of their goddess as the crescent moon.

The crescent moon symbol was also associated with Astarte, an ancient Phoenician fertility goddess.

The Egyptian Isis was also represented as standing on a crescent moon with stars surrounding her head. This very representation is seen today in Catholic art, showing “Mary” standing on a crescent moon.

Of course, that is not the Mary of the Bible, but the old pagan goddess in a new garb.