The Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) is not inspired of God

Contention 1 Point 1: Firstly, we seem to have agreed that the Church included the deuterocanonical books since the beginning of the Christian bible, since my opponent never disputed the fact that the council of Rome declared it so in the fourth century. This means that at least eleven centuries of Christians accepted these books as God’s Word. Secondly, concerning the Septuagint, my opponent has once again failed to supply a source for his argument. We don’t know which ‘scholars’ to reference. Consequently, since this is unfortunately the last round of debate, that his sources agree with this Protestant source which seems to suggest that the deuterocanonical books were not all inserted in the fourth century but were slowly added to the Septuagint as they were written. “The period between Testaments, between B. C. 425 and the time of Christ, gave rise to additional writings, which included the history of the Maccabees among others. These writing became part of the LXX library; some in the early church viewed these additional works as scripture rather then “additional” works. ” . http://www.truthnet.org... And then this source assures us that the deuterocanonical books were a part of Hebrew Scripture. “It is true that these seven books and portions of Daniel and Esther were not written in the Hebrew language. However, they were part of the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Scriptures. ” . http://www.catholicbasictraining.com... Additionally, even if some of the Jewish people who my opponent’s scholars might have studied did not insert the deuterocanonical books into their copies of the Septuigent, others definitely did since there was no overarching Bible or agreement for the Hebrew people at the time of Christ. “During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. ” . http://www.ewtn.com... As for those Church fathers who my opponent claims rejected the deuterocanonical books; “those Fathers who left the Deuterocanonicals off the list of a canon, did not in any way shape or form ever deny those books inspiration, and did not merely use them for devotional purposes, but used these books as Scripture and called them Scripture. ” The Church Fathers were in agreement with the Church at the Council of Rome. . http://matt1618.freeyellow.com... Contention 2 Point 1: Actually, keys in the Bible always symbolize authority. In Isaiah 22:22 we see a prophet of God bestowing keys on the new Jewish prime minister. While these keys come with the power to open and close, they do so because they are actually a symbol of authority. The prime minister of Jerusalem does not merely monitor those entering and leaving his realm, but rules it. Christ has the keys of hades because he rules the after life and has authority over it. Peter has keys, not to allow him to preach the gospel since we can all do that, but the allow him to rule the Church as Christ’s vicar on Earth. Just because Peter is the first pope on earth doesn’t mean he will be the greatest in heaven. This is why the apostles were arguing about being the greatest in the next life and not in this one. Unfortunately, since my opponent’s argument concerning Irenaeus is new, his link doesn’t bring me to his source and I have been unable to find it on my own, I am unable to argue the point for lack of information on the topic. As for Eusebius, not every Father of the Church would expect himself to need to state Peter’s authority, so this argument that Eusebius did not state Peter’s authority is not in itself convincing. Matthew 16:19 and the fact that there has been a pope since the first centuries of the Church is the proof, not an opinion, that my opponent has asked for to show the Church’s authority. As for Mary’s virginity, the Greek in Matthew 1:24-25 shows that this verse is not really convincing that she had intercourse with Joseph. “The reason is because in the Greek, the term being translated "until" has different connotations than in English. Depending on where it's found, this same generic conjunction is translated "to," "unto," "as far as," "even," "till," and "until. "” . http://forums.catholic.com... Point 2: My opponent has said that the Jews should determine the New Testament as well as the Old. If this is the case, then there should be no New Testament since, as is commonly known among historians and even stated in the Bible, the Jewish people rejected Christ’s resurrection and even persecuted the Christians (Saul! ). The Jewish people, to this day even, do not accept the New Testament. This means that my opponent’s mechanism for determining Scripture is faulty, and we are only left with the Catholic Church as the only remaining way for us to have a legitimate New Testament. This means that when the Council of Rome declared the deuterocanonical books inspired they spoke the truth. My opponent’s case: Reason 1: dropped by my opponent Reason 2: My opponent has misunderstood the Catholic position on Purgatory and salvation. One does not ‘need’ to do good works to go to heaven, merely receive God’s forgiveness for his sins. The Catholic Church teaches that one merely need receive baptism of desire which is what the good thief would have received. “The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. ” In other words, if one with a loving heart wants what is necessary for salvation, then this is considered a baptism of desire. . http://www.newadvent.org... The rest of my former argument still stands. The doctrine of purgatory agrees with the other verses my opponent mentioned, since Purgatory is merely a quick stop on the way to Christ’s presence. Reason 3: dropped Reason 4: Part was dropped, I will address the rest. Concerning magic, my opponent apparently missed my point, since I stated that magic is the use of demons for witchcraft, while the supposed ‘magic’ in by the angel was not magic according to the Jews since it was a miracle of God. Reason 5: Judith is completely accurate in every factual claim it makes. Just like Job, however, the book’s main purpose is to teach a lesson, not recount history. Thus, it is like saying that Jack and the Bean Stalk is not historically accurate when it never intended to be in the first place. Reason 6: Actually, it is my opponent who has misunderstood the issue here. He has confused the concepts of saved by grace and saved by faith alone. So, I agree with and am familiar with the teachings my opponent quoted. Verses such as James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” show that some sort of works play a part in obtaining God’s Grace. Concerning the Tobit verses, you will note that neither verse says that almsgiving ‘forgives’ sins. If you look at the verses in context, you will see that both are presenting almsgiving as a way of life. In this context, we can understand that almsgiving will purge sin in the sense that it purifies one’s life and thus causes us to commit fewer sins. Basically, ‘sin’ is used in the sense of being a habit or habitual practice which needs purified by a new way of life. I thank my opponent for this very broad and interesting debate. I would be open to having a more in-depth discussion or an additional debate on any of the topics which we lightly touched on here with anyone who is interested.