The Holy Catholic Church vs Baptist

This is the last round and as I promised I will hold off from posting a full rebuttal. I will answer my opponents questions at his request and reutter points made here. My opponent desired to know how the Apocrypha is not inspired and I will answer with this: It must be first and foremost noted that the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew canon, and never appeared in the Hebrew Bibles. Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates that his opinion was the general and prevailing one among his countrymen, said thus, "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. .. .". We see that a closed canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and before his time. Josephus states that there were twenty-two books, two less than that found in the traditional Hebrew Old Testament. This difference can be ascribed to his joining of Jeremiah with Lamentations and Ruth with Judges. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). Not one of the books is in the Hebrew language. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. . http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com... . http://www.bible.ca... Pro also asserted that the Jews recieved the canon but seen they originally did not. We read: Peter S Ruckman Ph. D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two, pages 407-409: "I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN' that the Greek Old Testament LXX had begun to be translated before 285BC. The evidence for this? Don't be silly; the Alexandrian Cult never deals with evidence. Every LXX manuscript cited in the Septuagint Concordance was written 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. They are as follows:" Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include: A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10. Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha. C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets! B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament. Ruckman continues: "The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation. " "The mythological LXX or Septuagint is the most persistent spook to haunt orthodox Christianity since the myth that Christ was born in a cave. The theory is based on abstract speculation of the wildest sort without one piece of reliable documented evidence of ANY kind that there was ever on this earth one single copy of an OLD Testament in GREEK before the heading up of the school at Alexandria by Origen, one hundred years after the entire New Testament was complete, yet to this day there exists on every campus of every fundamental school in the United States the nebulous ghost of this non-existent spook. " . http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk... Pro also asked, why reject the Deuterocanon? Well, deuterocanonical and non-canonical scriptures in a single section designated "Apocrypha". This arrangement can lead to conflation between the otherwise distinct terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocryphal". . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent then cited us 5 examples of the N. T. showing links to the deuterocanon. This is false. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say. " My opponent then further suggests that the Bible is not equal to Jesus! Well, Jesus is throughout the Bible refered to as the Word of God and the Bible is also considered the Word of God, Jesus gave inspiration for the Bible. The Bible is to be considered equal to the Word of God because it is from God. This gives grounds to compare it to the Word of God from Jesus and it being true. If Jesus inspired them then He seen it as enough for man, that is good enough for me but not for the Catholic church. They need more than the Word of Jesus Christ. My opponent calls it circular reasoning for God to justify His Word as authority on earth for His people. He calls God's judgements as circular and they are, for His judgements do not require reason or debate about them. He also considers a founding rock as different than a cornerstone. Ask any mason and they would consider them the same. This means that Jesus Christ was saying He is the rock the Church is built upon, not Peter. My opponent also can not get around that the Roman Catholic church has placed idols inside there church which is forbidden by God on numerous passages. He consideres commands by God at certain times for certain reasons as a reason for them to put idols in the church. He is mistaken. My opponent also fails to see that the Catholic doctrine has prescribed that men should not marry to be preist. I have shown that is not Biblical doctrine and therefore their own. Also, my opponent does not see that a named position can have purpose as a, bishop, though he has failed to show that that position is above other members, it shouldn't. He has not shown that the Pope should also. When a person gains salvation it is through faith and grace. One can not gain salvation by self works. You can not, feed the poor, help the sick, not curse, not be immoral, to gain salvation. Though one who does gain salvation by faith, will show His salvation by living Christ like, we fail in this, but we should try. Therefore he fails as does the Catholic doctrine in saying that works are needed for salvation because they are not. You must be saved first before true good works are shown, not vice versa. I thank my opponent for this debate! Conduct: Both Spelling/grammer: Both Arguments: My opponent has failed to show that RC doctrine follows Christ's teachings. They use uninspired books in their Bible, non-Christ like teachings. They bow, pray and kiss, Idols, un-Christ like teachings. They hold rituals and practices that are not Biblical, un-Christ like teachings. He fails.