Deuterocanonicals should be in the bible

Thanks for my opponent's very well thought out reply. However I do notice he made some errors. 1. Alleged "Dropped arguments" (1) The forgiveness of sins by alms giving My opponent states I failed to argue/ reply to this topic. This is false. I completely answered his arguments. His argument was that alms giving for the forgiveness of sins ( Tobit 4:11 and 12:9) is contradictory to 1 John 1:7 and Paul's teachings which say " and for the blood of Jesus His son cleanses us from all sin" and " For by grace are you saved through faith, it is not of yourself". I correctly responded by showing that there was no contradiction at as Tobit 4:11 , 12:9 mentions practices Of the Old Testament that were fulfilled and REPLACED by the teachings of 1 John 1:7 and Paul's teachings ( New Testament teachings). Customs such as alms giving for the forgiveness of sins were fulfilled and were invalidated as soon as Jesus had been crucified. The teachings of "cleansing of sins through the blood of Christ" as Jesus, Paul and John teach are the NEW and only ways of forgiveness. These NEW teachings REPLACED and nullified the OLD teachings and customs/traditions like alms giving for the forgiveness of sins. Hence there is evidently NO CONTRADICTION between Tobit 4:11,12:9 and 1 John 1:7 as well as the teachings of Paul. (2) Money for the sins of the dead Like I stated earlier this in now way is contradiction to biblical teachings. The book of 2 Maccabees in no place affirms nor rejects the practices as mentioned in the book. Rather 2 Maccabees and it's author hold a position of neutrality. 2 Maccabees simply records what the Jews of the time ( Judas Maccabeus and his fellows) practiced and believed. However the book does not affirm nor deny these practices but simply is a record of what happened during the Maccabean revolution. Hence 2 Maccabees is not teaching that money can atone for the sins of the dead but rather simply shows that Jews of the time believed this. Thus 2 Maccabees 12:38-45 is not in error, as judged by your beliefs, but rather your Jewish ancestors are in the wrong. You should not be having a problem with 2 Maccabees but rather with your Jewish ancestors for "they" ,not the book, are in conflict with your beliefs. 2. Alleged "false teachings" A. "Use of magic" My opponent says Tobit 6:5-7 promotes the use of magic and that it is absurd. However my opponent is guilty of opinionated reasoning/ arguing from his opinion. He has no right to dismiss the teachings( in Tobit 6:5-7 ) of demonology as absurd superstition because he has NEVER tried to use the teachings. Hence he is no place to pass any sort of judgment on Tobit 6:5-7 until he has either tried it or has a reliable account of someone who has tried the teachings in Tobit 6:5-7. Magic as we both know comes from devil not from angels. The demonology as taught by the angel Raphael in Tobit 6:5-7 is thus not magic but actually affirmed demonology. As we know, angels are sinless and perfect servants of The Lord our God. So since these teachings came from an angel of The Lord then that means these teachings came from God. Are you accusing God of teaching magic? Are you accusing God of teachings men how to sin via his angels?? B. Prayers for the dead *Note: I retract my argument against Leviticus for I was guilty of reading the verses out of context. Prayers for the dead is an affirmed Catholic teaching. Prayers for the dead is in no way contradictory to biblical teachings. As seen the Jews of old in the period 200-100BC BELEIVED this to be a true doctrine. This teaching is what the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on. No prayers can save one for eternal damnation( hell). But prayers can atone for the sins of those in purgatory. As anyone in purgatory is going to heaven but is need of purgation to purify him/ her for heaven. Only through the prayers of us here on earth can their sins and imperfections be atoned for. This in no way contradicts Isaiah 55 and various other biblical teachings as you argued earlier. Hence this is a debate on Catholic and ancient Jewish doctrine vs modern Jewish doctrines. This in itself is another debate entirely. 3. Alleged historical errors A. Your source is not stating that Judith 1:5. Is a historical error. It in fact is DEFENDING the historical accuracy of Judith 1:5. It is even referenced here ( creationwiki.org/Book_of_Judith) as evidence that Judith is CORRECT. Follow that link and it will show you that Judith does not contain any historical errors but that the alleged errors only appear to be errors at face view but once they are studied in depth, these alleged historical errors are actually historically accurate. You are guilty of misreading your source. B. Concerning Baruch 6:2 I made a HUGE mistake. I mixed my numbers up. Instead of saying Baruch 6:2 meant 7 10year generations, I said that Baruch 6:2 meant 10 7year generations which is false . I correctly meant to say that a generation was 10 years and thus it equals 70years as Jeremiah 25:11 says. I apologize for the confusion. Hence Baruch is in agreement with Jeremiah. My historical argument I am guessing my opponent concedes to the historical argument that. I stated at the end of my round 2 rebuttal. I guess it is impossible to argue history. Refferences: * creationwiki.org/Book_of_Judith *www.newadvent.org/cathen/10666c.htm ( Catholic encyclopedia)