The Holy Catholic Church vs Baptist

Let us continue.Con writes "That is easy, the apocrypha is not inspired."So you assert.Con writes "The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint"The Septuagint was universally received until a Jewish council changed the canon. That council also declared the entire NT uninspired, so I guess if you feel it had any binding authority you wouldn't have the Bible.Con writes "all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles."The declaration made about the canonicity of the Deuterocanon was made by a Jewish council that also reject the NT. Do you reject the NT? Then why do you reject the Deuterocanon? Also, the second part is patently false.Matthew 2:16 and Wisdom 11:7Matthew 6:19-20 and Sirach 29:11Matthew 16:18 and Wisdom 16:13Matthew 27:43 and Wisdom 2:18Mark 9:48 and Judith 16:17I can go on, but that would waste too much space. You've provided no evidence for you extravagent claim that no one ever referenced the Deuterocanon, but as you can clearly see people did.Con writes "We can also know the Bible is the inspired Word of God because of messianic prophecies foretelling Jesus Christ hundreds of years prior, telling of His virgin birth and how He would be the rejected corner stone of the Church."That argument says nothing about the Bible. Jesus =/= the Bible.If I scribble out a little text about Jesus, is that sound scripture? What grounds do you have to say that it is not?Con writes "Really? Jesus Christ calls himself the Word of God and He inspired all scripture. I think these passages below show that the scriptures are sufficent enough!"Paraphrasing Con: "You don't think the scriptures are enough? Let me use the scriptures to prove that they are enough!"I could just as easily say "The Catholic Church is right because the Catholic Church says it is right", but what kind of an argument would that be?Con writes "My opponent should show that the RC is in fact holding to the tradidtions of scripture and the apostles who wrote them. This is the argument here, that they are not!"No, the argument is that the Catholic Church follows the teachings of Jesus.Con writes "JESUS is the cornerstone upon which the Church is built. Surely, a flawed sinful man such as Peter could not have been the cornerstone of the church."Why must it be either Jesus or Peter? Jesus built the Church on Peter. Peter wasn't the cornerstone, he was the rock. Since you believe flawed men can write perfect scriptures, why don't you believe flawed Peter could be the rock on which the Church was built?Ten CommandmentsCon writes " I deem every word that is incited in the ten commandments as important and needed to be included. I agree that graven images can be included in the 1st commandment but those words should be included in it and not excluded."Your own source for the ten commandments excluded some words. Therefore, you are a hypocrite and you should drop this argument.IdolatryCon writes "My opponent see's no problem with planting images of men in the House of God even though God commanded against it over and over in the Bible."He couldn't have been all against it if he commanded it himself.Con writes "My opponent then wants us to believe that because the church say's it is not worship, it is not. I ask the readers, If you bow down on your knee's, pray and kiss a statue, is it nor worship of that statue?"This wasn't addressed to me, but I love you so much I'll respond to it anyway. No. Even on the very off chance that for whatever reason I'm kneeling in front of a statue (say, of Mary) praying, I'm not thinking "O stone god which stands before me, help me out", because it's obvious the statue isn't a god.Idolatry is when you worship something as a god. No Catholic worships statues like gods, and if one did he would probably be anathema.Rituals1. PriestsI can say this until I'm blue in the face, but becoming a priest is voluntary. Unless you can find scriptures saying "You must be married or you are an abomination!", this argument fails.Matthew 19:12 reads"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."" Relevant part underlined. If you couldn't accept not being married, you wouldn't choose to become a Catholic priest of the Latin rite now, would you?2. Clergy-laityI was fortunate to happen upon this scripture, which completely destroys your argument in toto.Observe 1 Timothy 3:1"This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task."Even as the NT was being written, there was a clergy-laity division, as is evidenced by this verse. Therefore, unless my opponent rejects the scripture, this argument fails.3. Works and GraceDo note the title of this section, as my opponent shifted the topic here completely.Con writes "James is simply saying that if a person is genuinely saved by faith, then there should be fruit (good works) in that person's life to show it."Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that one who does no works is one who is not saved. This argument too fails.Bible AloneUsing the Bible alone is a logically untenable position, because there are two ways to prove that the Bible alone is sufficient: while using it, and while not using it.If you prove the Bible alone to be sufficient using the Bible, you've used circular reasoning.If you prove the Bible alone to be sufficient without using the Bible, you've shown that something outside the Bible (your proof that the Bible alone is sufficient) is necessary.Therefore, it is impossible to prove that the Bible alone is enough, and that makes the position logically untenable. Regardless, I'd like my opponent to provide his reasons for rejecting the Deuterocanon (besides his appeal to popularity) and his reasons for accepting the Biblical canon as he does, as the canon of the Bible comes from outside the Bible.Thank you.