The Deuterocanon is not inspired

Thanks to my opponent again! My opponent says, "They weren't only hinting at the Jews alone being able to teach and that the N. T. was only talking about the apostles as being teachers. " This is true but let's remind him who the apostles were, they were Jews. Hebrews 5:12 was infact describing the Jews as those given the oracles of God. Moses was a Hebrew and progenitor of the Jewish people. I am not suggesting that all Jew's are to determine the scriptures. I have no trouble relying on those Jews in determining the O. T. Now when it comes to the N. T. it is only logical to rely on Christian Jews, which in fact, are many in the world then and today. My opponent fails to see that the Jews who reject the N. T. still in fact rely on the O. T. for their beliefs and that is sacred to them. It was Jewish people who saw and recorded Jesus Christ and wrote the very gospels we read today. The Jews in question are the ones who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Just because they rejected the N. T. , should that mean they can not determine the O. T. ? NO! My opponent says that my translation in John 7:35 is a grave error. He gives no reason why this is true. He gives no other translation. He simply says that it should read Greek instead of Gentile and no reason why. Were there only Greeks then? No, there were many peoples who were Gentiles and all were available for teaching and salvation. Con asks, "Even though (most of) the Jews rejected Christ, they're still God's chosen people? " Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. " Romans 2:9-10 "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. " We see that indeed the Jews are God's chosen people even though some rejected Jesus Christ but must we forget that not all did reject the Christ. The Jews in fact have been entrusted with the inspiration of God for His oracles. I do hold to the Jewish decision of Jamnia. The Ethiopian Jews did not have any decision in that council and maybe they should have. My opponent tries to bring the point that because many Jews were wrong by rejecting Jesus Christ that their O. T. determinations are also wrong. Why when it is most important to their religion and belief? I find it absurd to think they would reject scriptures of the O. T. that is important to the very core of their belief. By that logic then we should disregard any decision by anyone who has ever lived. Has everyone that lived told a lie and made wrong decisions? Yes, they have but should we reject all their decisions because of it? No, we shouldn't. I agree though that those Jews that rejected Christ have no authority over any of the N. T. but only the O. T. My opponent gives us the story that the non-Christian Jews rejected the Talmud as canon out of hostility for Christians but still view it as canon. What? No, it is not canon is because they do not feel it is inspired scripture and it not being canon shows that. I have no doubt they view it as important as Jewish heritage literature. The reason I brought forward the other churches that were Christian was because they opposed the RCC and maintained their own scriptures or very well could have had the same scriptures. The point was they did not agree with the RCC and had to remain underground because of the long reach of the RCC, which no doubt caused the Protestant reformation also. The Ethiopian Jews have not been fully determined as primarily Jewish. Their canon involves all the writing's of all the Jewish culture. It seems by this point my opponent is suggesting that we should take all Jewish writing's as inspired and canon. My opponent seems to say I am deluded but his own response shows delusion. He says that Jesus used a Greek written Bible, that is what the Septuagint is, Jesus spoke and read Aramaic. So, how did Jesus use it if it was written in Greek? On top of the fact that many sources says that the Septuagint was written after Jesus. . http://www.scionofzion.com... Con says, "I quoted a stupid passage. " I doubt that. He then gives us another passage that states seven angels that STOOD before God. This does not help him nor does he give any explanation for his reasoning. I am sure many angels have stood before God. My opponent says that the author of Maccabees is just being modest when he says that there is no prophet in Israel. I call it honesty myself. In 1 Corinthians the KJV is a little different. He asks, "He thinks? He only thinks? He doesn't know? " I agree here that Paul was being modest but this statement and the three in Maccabees are not close to the same. Maccabees clearly says that there is not a prophet in Israel. Was he a apostle? Speaking on the apostles, they all were hand picked by Jesus Christ and given the task of writing scripture about Christ and to other Christians churches but my opponent seems to think that was not good enough. A prophet writes things they have not physically happened yet but was inspired to see. The apostles saw what they wrote about. My opponent clearly has one passage within the whole N. T. to fall back on. It is true that Maccabees relates to Hebrews in that one instance and none of my O. T. canon relates to the later portion of that verse. My opponent has not given us any reason other than one half of a verse to determine if the Deuterocanon is inspired. This is what this whole debate is about but we get one half of a verse as the sole reason why the entire Deuterocanon is scripture. My opponent admitted that Judith was not historically accurate. For the voters that is enough to displace Judith. In Tobit he admits that the author was creating fictional characters. In fact he says that he is not seeking actual history when reading the Deuterocanon. I hope he doesn't take that approach with the N. T. This bit from a random website no less. My opponent seen no problem with with 2 Maccabees 12:42-45 in Catholicism teaching that the bread and the wine are actually changed into Christ"s body and blood? If the bread and wine are literally turned into flesh and blood, Jesus would have been advocating a violation of the Law that God had given Israel through Moses. That Law prohibited the consuming of any sort of blood (Lev. 17:10-12). Conclusion: My opponent gave us three intentions. The first one is accepted and has not been shown as a reason to accept the Deuterocanon. Contention number two is also fallible because the early church did not make canon until 382 A. D. and there was many canon's available then. We seen that the Jewish council had a O. T. canon developed before then. The Ethiopian Jews were not part of that council. We have no reason to believe that the Christian Jews of that time accepted the Deutercanon. My opponent's third contention was highly fallible by saying that some of the books could be inspired. I have not rejected that particular verses mite be inspired, like Heb. 11:35. The point is if any of the writings in the Deutercanon are not inspired(in fact majority)then it is not inspired scripture. It is to hard to tell which is and which is not therefore it need not be canon. This is the Jewish point of view. If one book or portions of books are not inspired in the Deuterocanon then we would have non-inspired scripture in it. My canon is no doubt all inspired scripture. My opponent had only to show why the scripture was inspired and he failed to do that. He basically could have rejected my whole argument by showing that methods of determining the Deuterocanon but he failed to show any of it. RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED!