The Deuterocanon is not inspired

Pro writes "My opponent seemed to think the passages I supplied were not hinting to the Jewish disciples or prophets as being given the task of the correct canon and teachings." They were "hinting to the Jewish disciples… as being given the task" of teaching. They weren't only hinting at the Jews alone being able to teach, and they mentioned no canons at all. 1 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn't mention Jews, it mentions the apostles. My opponent should have given a reason for thinking that the people spoke of were entrusted with the Gospel because they were Jews, rather than because they were apostles. Hebrews 5:12 doesn't say you need a Jew to teach you. Acts 7:38 says "he… who received the lively oracles". Who was this he? Moses. Romans 3:1-2 says "were committed". Were the oracles still committed at the council of Jamnia? If so, then the rejection of the New Testament ought to stand. If not, then the rejection of the Deuterocanon ought to fail. John 7:35 in my opponent's Bible is a grave mistranslation. The word in question does not mean Gentiles, but rather Greeks [1], including Hellenistic Jews. Pro writes "We should not overlook that the Jews are God's chosen people and to them are given the inspiration of God." Even though (most of) the Jews rejected Christ, they're still God's chosen people? They still are entrusted with the inspiration of God when they rejected the NT? Pro writes "The Council of Jamnia, which seems to have taken place around 90 AD established the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews." So why do you hold to the council of Jamnia? The Ethiopian Jews are Jewish too, are they not entrusted with the oracles of God? The Sadducees were Jewish too, they rejected everything but the Torah. Are they not entrusted with the oracles of God? Mind you, the Sadducees lived after the "Law" and the "Prophets" had supposedly been canonized, yet they rejected them both. They were Jews, weren't they entrusted with the oracles? Pro writes "My opponent concludes that Jews could become atheist and should they be trusted then?" My point (which you clearly didn't get) was that the Jews weren't entrusted with the oracles just because they were Jewish in ethnicity. When they rejected Christ, they lost their authority. Pro writes "Would not the non-Christian Jews want a correct O.T.?" Pro also writes "The Talmud is not part of canon scripture by the Jews" The Talmud is easily one of the most important writings in Rabbinic Judaism, the Rabbinic Judaism that canonized the "Writings". My point was that if they used to deem Sirach scripture, then possibly the council only rejected it out of hostility to the Christians. If that was the case, then obviously they would not be as concerned with having a correct OT as they were with spiting the Christians. I can't help but wonder what point my opponent is trying to make by mentioning underground churches. Does he have any evidence that these churches fully agreed with the Jews regarding the OT? If not, then why bring them up? Pro writes "The only Jewish sect that maintains the books in the Deuterocanon are the Ethiopian Jews and we have discussed them briefly, they have the widest canon in the world." So? They're still Jews. Why weren't they entrusted with the oracles? Because their canon doesn't agree with yours? Pro writes "The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the it, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these could not read Hebrew." Oh, how deluded you are. The Jewish Christians (and Jesus) used it too [2]. Even this rabidly anti-Deuterocanonical source admits that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint [3]. Pro writes "The seven spirits of God are symbolic of the Holy Spirit."Sorry, I quoted a stupid passage. Try Revelation 8:2 "And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets"Pro writes "Maccabees makes reference that there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials. Remember here that the author includes himself in this period." No prophets. Not no inspiration. The author was probably just being modest when he expressed concern about the quality. 1 Corinthians 7:40 reads: "She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God." He thinks? He only thinks? He doesn't know? Paul's just being modest and humble. If you have the Spirit of God inspiring you to write inspired scripture, I think you'd know.Pro writes "My opponent suggested that Saint Peter or Simon Peter was not a prophet."St. Peter wasn't a prophet. Neither were any of the twelve apostles. Still, they penned inspired scripture. Pro supplies alternate OT passagesI don't have much space, so all I can really say is look them up. The Deuterocanonical passages are much more direct than the alternate passages my opponent supplies, and you can only really see it his way with an extreme stretch. Pro writes "There are examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant O.T." Yeah, but that's only part of it, isn't it? "Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection." Go on. Find that. The entire verse is unquestionably referring to scripture. The Deuterocanon. Pro writes "Judith 1:5" Judith is presumably an allegory, in fact probably because of this bit that you point out. Every Jew at the time would know that that was clearly not historically accurate, and thus would realize it wasn't ordinary historical writing.Pro writes "Tobit"Tobit is presumably an allegory too. As some random website says on the topic:"Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson." - Random Website [4] Pro writes "2 Maccabees 12:42-45" I see no problem (and you haven't pointed out one). Pro writes "Wisdom of Solomon" I can't really respond lacking a verse. Pro writes "Sirach" You ought not to compair Sirach to the New Testament. If you compared Leviticus (for example) with the New Testament, I'm sure you'd find some issues as well. Pro writes "2 Maccabees 15:14" Pro also writes "Baruch 3:4" So it's safe to assume the only way you ever pray is with that one prayer? I suppose you'll have to throw out most of the OT for teaching alternate forms of prayer. You'll probably have to chuck the NT too. Anyhow, Matthew 6:9 in no way implies that Jeremiah can't pray for his people. For all you know, Jeremiah is just repeating that one prayer over and over again. Pro writes "Tobit 12:12" Turn. You misunderstand this completely. No one was praying to an angel. Raphael was delivering Tobit's prayer to God. See Revelation 5:8. This should be an argument for me.Pro writes "2 Maccabees 12:42,45"Hebrews 9:27 says"Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,"2 Maccabees 12:42-45 in no way implies that people die more than once, or are not judged after dying, so I fail to see your point.Conclusion:I feel my original 3 contentions stand. My opponent accepts the Council of Jamnia's declaration of the OT for some reason as canonical, while deciding that it was only partially entrusted with the scriptures and for some reason could make the OT canon but not the NT canon, even though the canon my opponent uses was not even universally recognized by the Jews. Extend my arguement about Deuterocanonical acceptance in the early Church. I feel my argument regarding Deuterocanonical references in the NT stands as well.Even thugh I may not have shown it, I greatly enjoyed this, and I thank my opponent for a solid debate.Sources: 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly...4. http://bit.ly...