The Deuterocanon is not inspired

I apologize for an apparent ambiguity in my earlier argument. When I said "Jew", I was referring to people who adhered to Judaism, not the ethnic group.I would also like to thank my opponent for not extending all his first round arguments, because that saves me the trouble of rebutting two rounds worth of arguments in one round and was very thoughtful.Rebuttals:Pro writes "He also generally agrees with the theory that the Jews were invested with the power to decide canon scriptures"All the scripture my opponent posts is irrelevant, except Acts, and Acts speaks not of the canon but of Moses being inspired.Pro writes "In fact the Christian Jews are to teach and pass the Word of God to the Gentiles and not the opposite"Again, I apologize. By "Jew", I meant "follower of Judaism".I'm really quite sorry for this, it never occurred to me that I was being ambiguous. This is fully my fault.Pro writes "There is evidence to suggest that the process of canonization occurred between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D."How universal was this canonization? Not too universal, I would suppose, given that one of the two biggest groups in Jesus' time rejected everything but the Torah, and that even today Ethiopian Jews accept the Deuterocanon. As far as I can tell, this canon only applies to Rabbinic Judaism. Is my opponent a Rabbinic Jew? If not, why does he believe this canon to be binding?Pro writes "This questions has no goal or foundation other than to claim all Jews are non-Christian."Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.However, I do ask this question of you; If 99% of the Jews (not referring to the religious group this time) were atheists, do you think they would still be entrusted with the scriptures by virtue of being Jewish in ethnicity?Pro writes "My opponent continues to claim that all Jews are not Christian by suggesting that the Jewish council was biased against Christianity."The Jewish council in question certainly included no Christians.Pro writes "This maybe true in this instance only because this council formed the O.T. canon and not the N.T. I ask my opponent to show the error of this council in the development of the O.T. canon, which I mite add was before the RCC canon?"It didn't form the NT because it rejected it. It was a council of non-Christian Jews, of that there can be no doubt, as the Jewish Jews didn't consider the Christian Jews to be Jewish.You can tell simply by the wholesale rejection of the NT and of Jesus by the council that it was not inclusive of Christian Jews.Also, you have not responded to my argument about the Book of Sirach.Pro writes "The canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD."I'm not sure if this is supposed to be intentionally misleading, but it certainly is (misleading). From Wikipedia source:"The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD." - WikipediaMy opponent has given no reason to think that the NT canon was decided before 150 A.D.Pro writes "My opponent should show why the RCC had premier decision on the canon?"Where did you get your canon from? Your NT canon seems identical in all aspects to the Catholic Church's canon, so I don't see on what grounds you're disputing this. Also, I doubt that either the Synod of Hippo or the Synod of Carthage was in Rome.Pro writes "I have shown that the Christian Jews stuck to their own O.T. and also the N.T. writings which did not include the Deuterocanon."Really? I don't recall where you showed that, beyond possibly an assertion or two.Pro writes "My opponent would like to just call the RCC the early church but there were many in that time that did not have the same scriptures as the RCC."I would indeed, because it was. Any evidence that there were "many" who did not have the same scriptures?Synod of Carthage, Synod of Hippo, Synod of Rome.Pro writes "The RCC held to the Septuagint, which was Greek and included the Deuterocanon but the Jewish Christians did not use the Deuterocanon"False [1]. Who do you think made the Septuagint? Jews, of course. They didn't make it just to stare at and declare it uninspired, they made it to use it, which they did. Fragments of the Deuterocanon in Hebrew have been discovered.If they obviously and clearly knew the Deuterocanon to be uninspired, it wouldn't make too much sense for them to translate it and include it alongside canonical scriptures without some kind of disclaimer, would it?Pro writes "They dropped books from the canon and did not add them."False. Those books were never in the canon.Look at my quotes from the Synod of Hippo and the Synod of Rome. They're the same canon, so I'll just re-quote Hippo:"But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books" - Synod of HippoNo Manasses, clearly. What two books of Ezra?Esdras is the most confusing of all the Old Testament books when it comes to canon. There is 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, and 4 Esdras.1 Esdras and 2 Esdras became known as Ezra and Nehemiah, while 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras became known as 1 and 2 Esdras [2].Clearly, the "Ezra, two books" referred to Ezra and Nehemiah, 1 (3) and 2 (4) Esdras were never canonical.Pro writes "My opponent should explain how this relates to angels and not the actual Spirits of God, like the Holy Spirit?"Look here [3]. There are not seven Holy Spirits, so it's not definition one. The Spirits of God are unlikely to be humans, so there goes definition two. Therefore, definition three, spirits higher than man but lower than God, i.e. angels.Pro writes "Here refers to lamps of fire and not angels."So you think God's seven spirits were just lamps? Or just horns? Or just eyes? How could they be simultaneously lamps and horns and eyes?Angels aren't physical beings. They could likely appear in multiple forms.Pro writes "I remind readers in the first round that the author of 1 Maccabees mentioned three times that His books are not inspired by God"No, he didn't say that his books are not inspired, he just said there was no prophet at the time. There's a huge difference.St. Paul wasn't a prophet, but he could write inspired scripture. St. James wasn't a prophet, but he could write inspired scripture. St. Peter wasn't a prophet, but he could write inspired scripture.Pro writes "This does not mean that Jewish learnings or customs that are refered in the book are not good in God's sight"So then, what's your definition of inspired?Pro writes "The reasons for rejecting the Deuterocanon is because the Jews do not accept them, both Christian and non-Christian."Really. Evidence, please.Pro writes "These books contradict teachings in the Old and New Testament."Assertion.Pro writes "Not one of them is in the Hebrew language."Lies. Sirach, Tobit, and Baruch were found to have been written in Hebrew [4]. Fragments of the rest have been found.Pro writes "These books have one reference to the teachings in the N.T., Heb 11:35."One direct and obvious reference. There are many, many not so direct and obvious ones. Regardless, you don't reject Obadiah because you don't find references to it in the NT, do you? Observe:Matthew 6:19-20 and Sirach 29:11Matthew 7:16 and Sirach 27:6Matthew 27:43 and Wisdom 2:18John 1:1-3 and Wisdom 9:1Pro writes "These books were not completely reconized until 1546 A.D."Wrong. I dedicated an entire contention to this in my opening argument.Pro writes "This is more than enough reason to reject them as inspired."Nope.jpgConclusion:I rest my case.Sources:1. http://bit.ly...2. http://bit.ly...3. http://bit.ly...4. http://bit.ly...