The Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) is not inspired of God

I will start by answering the reasons he believes they are inspired, then add to my case why they are not. The Apocrypha has no proof it was there in the beginning. The prove we have that the Apocrypha was not accepted by the Jews is that it wasn't in the Bible until A. D 382. Therefore, it was not in the Bible during the time of Christ. The Septuagint argument is flawed. Though it is true that the Septuagint includes the Apocrypha, many scholars have noted that while the Septuagint was first translated centuries before the time of Christ, it was not until about the fourth century AFTER Christ that the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint that date back to before Christ do not have the apocrypha writings in it. Therefore, we can conclude that the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God, Romans 3:2; did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture. The Catholic Church have no manuscripts of the Septuagint with the apocrypha in it BEFORE CHRIST, only after; because it was added. Just because some of the early church fathers used the apocrypha in their writings that doesn't mean they believed they were inspired. You can have respect for a book, without believing it's inspired. The Bible is also guilty of alluding to false writings. One example would be the "Bodily Assumption of Moses" (see Jude 9). Even if my opponent could find some Early Church Fathers that did believe they were inspired, it proves nothing. Many early church fathers rejected these books – Origin, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. (Reasoning from the Scriptures pp. 35) My opponent is referring to Peter as the first Pope. The "Keys of the kingdom" do not relate to Peter's supremacy, but to his privlege of preaching the gospel. In the New Testament a key always implies authority to open a door and give entrance to a place, or realm. Jesus for example possesses the keys of death and Hades, implying him authority to grant or deny access to these realms. (Revelation 1:18). This verse is teaching that the apostles were given the power to grant or deny access into the kingdom of God based on how people responded to the gospel message. Just prior to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion, some of the disciples argued over who would be the greatest in the kingdom (Luke 22:24-30) This wouldn't have happened if Peter was going to be Pope. This shows there was to supreme apostle. Also, according to Irenaeus, an overseer in the early church at Lyons (in modern day France) from 178-200 A. D. , recorded for us a list of the first 12 leaders of the church of Rome. He has recorded that Linus was the first leader. Irenaeus is a very trusted source for early church history, because he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Eusebius (c. 260 – c. 340), who is called the "Father of Church History," never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He only tells us that Peter came to Rome "at the END of his days" and was crucified there. So according to two very reliable sources, Peter was not the first Pope. . http://www.alwaysbeready.com... Again, the Catholic Church has got no say in what is inspired of God. My opponent says we should "assume" the Catholic church should be trusted to decide which books should be in the Bible or not. There are two problems with this. One, just because the Catholic church says they should decide what books should be in the Bible, doesn't mean they should. Just like when the Jehovahs Witnesses claim they are the true religion. Just because they claim to be the true relgion doesn't mean they are. Same with the Catholic religion, just because they say they should decide what should be in the Bible doesn't mean anything. We need proof, not opionins. Second, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). God used them to decide what books are in the Old and New Testaments, and it is up to us to accept God's decision; not change it. About Mary, my opponent said I was "stretching it" when I used Matthew 1:24-25, to show Mary lost her virginity. All I did was point to what the verse "clearly" said. Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born. Again, that word is UNTIL; therefore she clearly lost her virginity after Jesus was born. Again…. .UNTIL. My case: I never said Catholics believe ALL people go to purgatory. My case was that it contradicts scripture. Again, the thief did not have time to do good works or get bapitized to go to Heaven, and after he died he went to Heaven. We know this because Jesus said "TODAY, you will BE WITH ME in paradise. " (Luke 23:43). The Bible also says in Corinthians 5:1,2,8, that we go into Christs presence when we die, and Christ is in Heaven at the right hand of the father, (Ephesians 1:20). Therfore, he clearly was in Heaven with Christ when he died. Not purgatory. My opponent is trying to say the healing by the angel would have been understood to come from God. If this is so, that would be a contradiction because 1 Corithians 6:9-10 condemns ALL of Magic, not some of it. So if the Apocrypha is inspired of God, God is contradicting himself. My opponent is saying that Judith was not intended to be a historical book, but rather a book to show how the Jews were victorious over their oppressors. Again, if it's inspired of God, it needs to be completely accurate. Not partially. I have not misunderstood the Catholic position on salvation as my opponent claims. Some Catholics, like my opponent, are actually unfamiliar with some of the Roman Catholic literature: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9). "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema. " (Canon 14). Also, they teach we must be bapitized to be saved: ". . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 977). Again, the thief on the cross did not get bapitized. CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments. " Since my opponent agreed that we are saved by grace, let my show another clear contradiction: Salvation by works: Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. " Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting. " We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7). This clear contradiction alone proves that the Apocrypha and the New Testament cannot be both inspired of God, unless he contradicts himself. I'll have to stop here since I'm out of room. I had fun and enjoyed this debate, and I hope my opponent did as well.