The Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) is not inspired of God

Contention 1: The deuterocanonical books were there since the beginning Point 1: the deuterocanonical books were in the original bible: My opponent seems to have had a few arguments here which I would like to address in full since this is the most important point of the debate. If the deuterocanonical books have been accepted since the Church's infancy, then who are we to change this. Firstly, he stated that the Hebrew people did not accept the deuterocanonical books as canon around the time of Christ. He believes this because he sees issues with the books and because the Christian bible was not made until the fourth century. However, he did not give a source to show that the Jews did indeed reject these books. "We know that they were once in Hebrew scripture because the Septuagint still contained the books. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. It was used throughout the Hellenistic world as the primary source of Hebrew scripture… This translation was done sometime between 300-180 BC, long before the Pharisees castrated the Hebrew canon. " . http://catholicfaqs.org... Looking at this evidence from the Septuagint, we can see that there was a collection of inspired books of the bible which the Jews possessed and which included the deuterocanonical books. Secondly, he said that St. Jerome wrote a Bible which did not include the deuterocanonical books which supposedly means that the church at that time did not accept those books as cannon. This, however, is false logical step. If we look at other evidence, we see that while St. Jerome's translations were done well, the Church did not accept his fallible view that the deuterocanonical books were not inspired. "It's interesting that in the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers that defend the deutero books, Protestants are clear to point out that St. Jerome's mistake proves them to be non-canonical. St. Jerome was not infallible. He was also a victim to the confusion caused by Melito's discovery… However, it is clear from the letters of St Jerome a few years later in his life that he recounted his first inclination against the deutero and had completely accepted them as scripture. " So we see that the Church and majority of the Church fathers believed the deuterocanonical books were inspired and that Jerome himself eventually agreed as well. Thirdly and briefly, I would like to point out that while the Council of Trent did affirm the legitimacy of the deuterocanonical books, the council of Rome (as I showed last round) was the first official Church council to approve the deuterocanonical books when the approved the rest of the bible in the fourth century. Point 2: Dead Sea scrolls: Though this could be an interesting point, I will drop it for the sake of time, so we agree that the dead sea scrolls ‘prove' nothing one way or the other. Contention 2: hierarchy of the Church Point 1: I believe I have already refuted his main argument here. The Hebrews were in agreement with the Church around the time of Christ, so we can accept the deuterocanonical books according to both of our beliefs. As for the authority of the Church, Christ said to the first pope, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven. " (Matthew 16:19) That is authority enough, not to ‘make' something the Word of God, but to discover what has been the Word of God since it was written (this topic deserves more time which I do not have). The Church does not add their own say to what God says (Proverbs 30:6) but merely discover what is truly God's Word. As for the contradictions of the Church: it is stretching Matthew 1:24-25 to say that it is stating that Mary lost her virginity shortly after Christ's birth. At the time of Christ, the term brother was often used generically to refer to people who are merely one's cousins, so Matthew 12:46-47 does not mean that Mary had children, but just that Christ had relatives. . http://webspace.webring.com... Point 2: this point has been missed by my opponent. While he did give us a way to determine what should be part of the Old Testament, he did not supply a way to determine which New Testament books are the Word of God. Without having another source, we have to assume that it is up to the Church to determine which books are in the Bible and which are not. The Catholic Church is the only church which has really claimed to have done this. Now for my opponent's points. Reason 1: Neither of these passages say anything about inspiration, so further clarification will be needed for me to know what it is I am supposed to argue. Reason 2: Catholics do not believe that everyone goes to purgatory, and we also don't know how long someone stays in purgatory. It is quite possible that the good thief either had a short stay in purgatory, or what is more likely is that Christ forgave him for all his sins and punishments at once so he didn't have to go to purgatory. Thus, Purgatory does not contradict scripture but is actually supported by it in several places which I cannot get to in this debate. Reason 3: Job for example, and I'm sure many other books of the Bible are similar, does not claim to be inspired. We would have a small Bible if every book had to claim its inspiration. ‘Thus say the Lord' does not make the book containing this phrase inspired or even suggest it unless the phrase is specifically referring to the very book being written. As I said, this is the case only in a few of the books of the Bible. Reason 4: The acts of healing attributed to animal parts in Tobit 6:5-7 by the angel would have been understood to come from God by the readers and not from demons as is the case with normal magic. Luke 16:25 is merely a verse about Lazarus which was never meant to communicate anything about purgatory which is what praying for the dead would refer to. The judgment in Hebrews 9:27 does not disprove purgatory, since a judgment for a man to go to heaven does not mean that he does not need to stop at purgatory first. In reference to Judith 9:10-13, God also condemns killing. Nevertheless, we see God commanding the seemingly pointless slaughter of thousands of people when Joshua invaded the Promised Land and in numerous other places. Reason 5: Judith was not intended to be a historical book, but rather a book to show how the Jews were victorious over their oppressors. Ninevah and Babylon have symbolical meaning, and were used by the author of Judith for this meaning, and not for their historical accuracy. The Jewish readers of the time would have understood this completely as do most informed readers today. . http://www.catholiceducation.org... Reason 6: My opponent has misunderstood the Catholic position. Catholics agree with Protestants that we are saved by God's Grace through Christ's death. Through serious sin, however, we can refuse God's Grace. This is in agreement with the verses brought up by my opponent. The author of 1 John 5:13 is merely saying that he wants Christians to know that they are indeed promised eternal life through Christ's death and that we are not all condemned to hell or something of that nature. It would be understood by the readers due to other teachings of the apostles that sin could sever them from this eternal life. Catholics do not agree with the system of ‘good works' which my opponent presented. In summary, I apologize if some of my arguments seem brief, but the quantity of my opponent's arguments has forced me to shorten my explanations to less than I would desire. I look forward to my opponent's final round.