The Deuterocanon is not inspired

I wrote up a massive rebuttal, but then decided that I should probably make an opening argument instead, so that's why there's no rebuttal. Don't worry; one will show up eventually. Argument:Contention One: Rejection of the Deuterocanon was by a Jewish council that also rejected the New TestamentI have heard many Protestants claim that the Jews were somehow invested with a great power to decide the canon. In general, I agree with this in theory, but when they go on to claim that the Jews rejecting the Deuterocanon (never mind that it was after Jesus started His Church) is complete justification for them to similarly reject it, I facepalm. When did the Jews reject the Deuterocanon as inspired? Well, for starters, this wasn't a universal rejection. To this day, Ethiopian Jews include the Deuterocanon among the list of their inspired scriptures. Reading my opponent's argument, it seems he's claiming that the Deuterocanon was rejected at the council of Jamnia, and since I'm no historian and the time period seems about right, I'll assume that's true. The council of Jamnia was in the first century, and until then the canon was undecided. While my opponent would have you believe that there was some universal consensus among the Jews before the canon was officially decided on, that is untrue. There were two major groups; the Pharisees and the Sadducees, with the Sadducees only accepting the authority of the Torah and none of the other books. Unfortunately for them, they managed to become extinct before the council of Jamnia, which is probably why the view of the Pharisees prevailed. What's the point of all this rambling? It is more or less on the authority of the Jewish council that my opponent relies for declaring his Old Testament canon canonical, yet that council (presumably) was wrong in rejecting the New Testament. It seems to me that either the council was right or it wasn't, yet my opponent accepts some of the decisions made by that council with regards to the scriptures, but rejects others. Importantly, it's not as if the council merely affirmed a universally accepted truth; besides the reasons I already mentioned, Sirach is quoted in the Talmud where it is treated as inspired scripture, but was rejected by this council:"And there gathered themselves to Jephthah idle men and they went out with him; mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written: Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal" - Talmud (quoting Sirach 13:15)Additionally, this was in the first century, after Christianity had already begun. I ask my opponent; If a Jewish council was called today and decided that their canon should actually only include the Torah, would he accept that decision as binding on Christians? This seems to me a logical extension of the view that the Jews have full and absolute jurisdiction over the Old Testament canon forever. In conclusion for this argument, I think that the council from which my opponent derives his canon was undeniably biased against Christianity in purpose, and for this reason was unlikely to make the most accurate judgements (Sirach? ). I really hope my opponent answers my aggressive question in the last paragraph, because it will shine much light on my position for him. Contention Two: The early Church accepted the DeuterocanonThis is fairly self-explanatory. It's a common (and completely wrong) claim that the Deuterocanon was canonized at Trent. Trent merely reaffirmed the canon. You can't reaffirm something that was never affirmed in the first place, so it stands to reason that Trent was merely approving an already extant canon. Read the following quotes from early Councils:"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" - Pope St. Damasus (Synod of Rome)"That besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books" - Synod of HippoThe Synod of Carthage also affirmed this same canon, but I wasn't able to find a quote from it. I can also quote numerous instances of pre-Trent Councils using the Deuterocanon as scripture:"Those who adopt this heresy not only heap insults on representational art, but also reject all forms of reverence and make a mockery of those who live pious and holy lives, thus fulfilling in their own regard that saying of scripture, for the sinner piety is an abomination. " - Nicea II (quoting Sirach 1:25)"As divine scripture clearly proclaims 'Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault,'" - Constantinople IV (quoting Sirach 11:7)"This holy synod admonishes all holders of benefices, or those in holy orders, since they are bound to the canonical hours, if they wish their prayers to be acceptable to God, to recite the day and night offices, not in a mumble or between their teeth, nor swallowing or abbreviating their words, nor intermingling conversation and laughter, but, whether they are alone or with others, reverently and distinctly and in such a place as will not diminish devotion, for which they ought to dispose and prepare themselves, as the scripture says: Before prayer prepare your soul, and do not be like someone who tempts God. " - Vienne (quoting Sirach 18:23)So it is completely wrong and a grave error to claim that the Council of Trent created the canon which clearly had existed since at least the fourth century. Contention Three: There is reason to believe some of the Deuterocanonical books are inspiredIn Tobit 12:15, we read:"I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord. "Okay. That could be completely fabricated, couldn't it be? But Revelation 1:4 reads:"John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,"Could Tobit have known of the seven angels if Raphael was a phony? Probably not. Anticipating that my opponent will claim that "spirits" and "angels" are completely different, I contend that the word here translated as "spirit" could mean "angel" as well, and taken in context is in fact more likely to mean angel than anything else. The non-Catholic version of the Book of Esther never mentions God. Not once. I feel that's suspicious. Sirach, as I already mentioned, was quoted in the Talmud. Hebrews 11:35 says:"Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection. " This is a clear allusion to 2 Maccabees 7:"(9) At the point of death he said: 'You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying. '" In 2 Maccabees 7, a bunch of people died horribly and torturously for refusing to break the commandment of God. This is a clear reference. Conclusion:The main reason for rejecting the Deuterocanon is a Jewish council, and the main reasons for accepting it are Christian ones. Sources:1. . http://bit.ly/TnZuFm