The Deuterocanon is not inspired

Thank you to AlwaysmorethanYou for such a quick reply. I drop all my arguments from round 1 but one because none of them were responded too. The one I drop is the addition of books in 1546 but I add one in its place. I will give a full rebuttal and also redefine my first round argument. I will adapt my rebuttal with my argument and I hope to make it a easy read for the readers. Rebuttal: My opponent starts his argument by opposing the Jewish determination of rejecting the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. He also generally agrees with the theory that the Jews were invested with the power to decide canon scriptures, (1 Thessalonians 2:1-6; Hebrews 5:8-14; Acts 7:33-39). In fact the Christian Jews are to teach and pass the Word of God to the Gentiles and not the opposite, (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11; Romans 15:18; Acts 15:7; Acts 13:42). Though my opponent somehow wants us to believe that all Jews are not Christian or do not accept the New Testament and that is totally untrue. In fact there are many Christian Jews in the world today and then. Are we to believe that those same Jews are not to be trusted to deliver proper canon scriptures as well? My opponent merely facepalms such a idea. Are we to believe all Jews are anti-Christian during and after Jesus Christ? This is impossible to show because we know that all the apostles were Jewish and Christian. Are we to believe that they were the only Jewish Christians in Jesus's day and just after? http://en.wikipedia.org... There is evidence to suggest that the process of canonization occurred between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. A popular theory is that the Torah was canonized between 400-200 B.C., the Prophets 200 B.C., and the Writings 100 A.D. None of these involved the named Deuterocanon. Though it could be agreed that there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent then retorts to a meaningless question as to suggest that maybe if the Jews would reject all books but the Torah, should we accept it. Well, there are many Jewish Christians and they would have be included in this question and I doubt they would reject the O.T. or the N.T. This questions has no goal or foundation other than to claim all Jews are non-Christian. My opponent continues to claim that all Jews are not Christian by suggesting that the Jewish council was biased against Christianity. This maybe true in this instance only because this council formed the O.T. canon and not the N.T. I ask my opponent to show the error of this council in the development of the O.T. canon, which I mite add was before the RCC canon? In the period extending roughly from AD 50 to 150 a number of documents began to circulate among the Christian churches, including epistles, gospels, memoirs, apocalypses, homilies, and collections of teachings. Several of these writings sought to extend, interpret, and apply apostolic teaching to meet the needs of Christians in a given locality. These churches consisted of Jewish, Palenstinian, Roman and various other peoples of the time. The canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD. We can conclude that the Roman's took control of the canonization of the N.T. after this point. Though this doesn't mean that Rome was the only Christian church or had the authority. My opponent should show why the RCC had premier decision on the canon? http://en.wikipedia.org... I have shown that the Christian Jews stuck to their own O.T. and also the N.T. writings which did not include the Deuterocanon. My opponent would like to just call the RCC the early church but there were many in that time that did not have the same scriptures as the RCC. The RCC held to the Septuagint, which was Greek and included the Deuterocanon but the Jewish Christians did not use the Deuterocanon. The reason I stick with the Jewish O.T. is because they are given the oracles of God. My opponent thinks I suggested that the council of Trent made the Apocrypha, this was not what I said, they changed the name to the Deuterocanon. I did make a mistake though, They dropped books from the canon and did not add them. Those dropped were Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras. In 1546 is the year that the name Deuterocanon was formed. I must apologize for my mistake, I still ask, Why were these books removed, when they were used for 1200 years? Either way the canon was changed in 1546 A.D. http://www.yrm.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent suggested that there is reason to believe some of the Deuterocanonical books are inspired. I ask him to show us reasons why? He gives us a claim that Esther does not mention God by name but it does refer about God. He misses that the Song of Solomon does not mention the word God also, will He find that strange? The workings in Esther no doubt are signs of God. The entire book shows that God's hand is behind the scenes saving the Jewish nation. The book of Esther reminds us that we do not need to see God to know that He is not far from us.(Acts 17:27) We move on to the Tobit 12:15 claim that connects with Revelations 1:4, this is a error by my opponent and any who suggest it. First we see that in Tobit it is a 'Angel', has a name, Raphael. We read that his Revelation example mentions seven spirits. I add two more passages that relate in Revelations, 4:5 "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God." Here refers to lamps of fire and not angels. In Rev. 5:6, reads, "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." Here it mentions a lamb with seven eyes and horns which are the spirits of God. My opponent should explain how this relates to angels and not the actual Spirits of God, like the Holy Spirit? My opponent then turns to Hebrews 11:35, this is the only passage that helps him, if it does. Both books of Maccabees are paralell and probably have the same author. I remind readers in the first round that the author of 1 Maccabees mentioned three times that His books are not inspired by God nor was he a prophet. This does not mean that Jewish learnings or customs that are refered in the book are not good in God's sight and taught by other teachers in the Jewish nation. If the books are not inspired then it is a history book and custom book of Jewish life. This would be the reason for a passage in the N.T. relating to 2 Maccabees. Let's remind readers this is one passage in a bulk of scripture. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com... The reasons for rejecting the Deuterocanon is because the Jews do not accept them, both Christian and non-Christian. These books contradict teachings in the Old and New Testament. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language. These books have one reference to the teachings in the N.T., Heb 11:35. These books were not offically added until 382 A.D. These books were not completely reconized until 1546 A.D. This is more than enough reason to reject them as inspired. Back to my opponent!