The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Deuterocanonicals should be in the bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,371 times Debate No: 19425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




The deuterocanonicals should not have been taken out by the protestants. The claim made is that they were not inspired however this is contrary to the truth. The deuterocanonicals were present in the first bible as decided at the Council of Rome and the African councils. Who gave the protestants the right to alter the word of God? The oldest bibles in the world contained the 73 book cannon as affirmed by the Catholic church at the councils.

the burden of proof is on the protestant (my opponent) to prove that the deuterocanonicals are not inspired and should not be in the bible.

Sources for information must be referenced.

-Round 1: acceptance and opening arguments only
- Rounds 2 and 3: rebuttals
-Round 4: closing arguments


Thank you to my partner for instigating this debate. Although I am not a protesant (Jewish theologically), I will defend the position that teh Deuterocanonical books should not be in the Bible.

Quotes from the Deutercanonical books can be verified at;

Introduction: What are the Deutercanonical books?

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses

I. False Teachings

The Deutercanonical books contain false teachings that contradict the rest of the Bible, and the Torah.

A. Use of magic

Tobid 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as it might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of Medes. Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kinds of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.

This is clearly a false teaching.Obviously smoke from a fishes heart, whened burned, cannot drive away evil spirits. Does such a superstition have a place in G-d's Word? By no means.

B. Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving

Tobid 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."

Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which burgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

Indeed, those two passages are contradictory to what Paul, and Jesus, taught. 1 John 1:7 says, "but if we walk in the light as He [Jesus] Himself is in the light, we have felowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,"

It also contradicts Paul where he said, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, it is not of yourself..."

C. Offering Money for the Sins of the Dead.

2. Maccabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent 12,000 drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Again, this has no place in the scriptures. Now is the time for salvation [Isaiah 55], not once you are dead.

II. Historical Errors

A. Wrong King of babylon

Judith 1:5, "Now in the 12th year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Braunch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

This is a historical error. Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the King of Assyria. Moreover, Braunch 6:2 contradicts Jeremiah 25:11.


Thank you. Good luck!

Debate Round No. 1


well this is an honor to debate you and although I was expecting a Protestant to debate me , you being a Jew is just as good as you too know the Old testament well so thanks for accepting.

" The use of magic in Tobit 6:5-7"

My opponent states Tobit 6:5-7. Promotes the teaching of magic but this could be no farther from the truth. The angel Raphael was disguised as under the name Azarias. An angel of God would only do and teach that which God has commanded him to. Magic is the teachings of demons on how to perform certain supernatural and mystical things against the will og God. However Azarias (the angel Raphael) was an angel of God and thus his teachings were affirmed by God. This is why Tobit 6:5-7 is NOT promoting magic but rather giving us knowledge from God through his angel Raphael on how to perform a certain act affirmed by God which will chase demons away.

My opponent makes the assertion that 2 Maccabees 12:43 is contradictory to Isaiah 55.

This is not true! 2 Maccabees 12:43 displays Jewish traditions of the time. It must be notes that most credible christian, jewish and secular scholars affirm the historicity of 2 Maccabees . The book is not claiming the validity of these customs but rather is just recording what the Jews of the time practiced and believed . Thus your argument should not be directed at the book of 2 Maccabees but rather at your Jewish ancestors.

Compare 2 Maccabees 12:43 with Leviticus 4:13-20 which also displays a ridiculous custom of the time that Leviticus 4:13-20 is talking about. Yet you are ready to accept Leviticus and its teachings as scripture but not 2 Maccabees... Why the double standard? 2maccabees 12:43 in no way contradicts Isaiah 55.

Alleged historical errors of Judith 1:5

Judith 1:5 speaks of Nebuchodnosor , not the king of Babylon who took and destroyed Jerusalem, but another of the same name who reigned as King of Assyria from Niniveh. This Nebuchodnosor is also called by profane historians, Saosduchin. He succeeded Asarhaddon in the Kingdom of the Assyrians, and was contemporary with Mannasses, King of Juda. For more info on this here is where this issue is spoken of in depth ----� (

My opponent says Baruch 6:2 contradicts Jeremiah 25:11

This is not true at all. Baruch 6:2 seven 'generations' not seven 'years'.. Scholars and many others understood "gnerations" to means seventy years as Jeremiah 25:11 says. Fr Leo Haydock , an authority in biblical matters, in his commentary of the book of Baruch said " a generation sometimes consisted of seven, ten, fifteen, thirty , thirty five or one hundred years". Is accepted by biblical authorities. That 'generation' in Baruch 6:2 stands for ten seven year periods and thus it makes up 70 years as Jeremiah 25:11 says.

Now I want to put history on the table

The oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament. Are the Dead seas scrolls which are said to date back to 300BC. The scrolls belonged to a sect of Jews at Qumran. Amongst other writings of these Jews, the scrolls contained the septuagint which contained a number of Deuterocannonical scriptures namely ; Tobit , Letter of Jeremiah and Tobit.

In the days of Christ, 1st century AD there was more than one canon circulating the Jews. There's was the canon of the Pharasees , the canon of the Suddacees, the canon of the Etheopian Jews and the canon of the diaspora/ Greek speaking Jews known as the septuagint ( the canon of the ctholic bible ). ALL canons were acceptesdd as true.

In Ad 90 the Jews met at the Council of Jamnia to discuss a single cannon so that they could differentiate themselves from the christians. The christians were using the septuagint as their hebrew bible and used it to support their doctrines. The council of Jamnia was the council that resulted in the expulsion of the Deuterocanonicals and resulted in the 39 book old testament. However it is evident that before this council, the deuterocanonicals were viewed as scripture by the Jews, especially the diaspora jews who were the. A significantly large group of Jews if not the largest. It is a scholarly fact that the septuagint was the most widely used canon amongst the Jews in 1st century AD. The deuterocanonicals are thus scripture and were erroneously taken out by the Jews and later the protestants.

References :








I'd like to extend a thank you to my partner, Wandile, for such a quick and well-thought-out reply. Based upon those arguments, I can tell you are very intellegent.

I. Dropped Arguments

My partner failed to respond to several things: (1) Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving; and (2) Money for the sins of the dead. Due to the concession, I extend those arguments.

II. False Teachings

A. Use of Magic

I have argued that this was an absurd statement, not condoning the use of demonology.

B. Prayers for the dead.

This is not true! 2 Maccabees 12:43 displays Jewish traditions of the time. It must be notes that most credible christian, jewish and secular scholars affirm the historicity of 2 Maccabees . The book is not claiming the validity of these customs but rather is just recording what the Jews of the time practiced and believed . Thus your argument should not be directed at the book of 2 Maccabees but rather at your Jewish ancestors.

Actually, a few verses earlier, they are in battle and are slain because of idolitry. Hence, the "Jewish" people made an "atonment" for them.

Compare 2 Maccabees 12:43 with Leviticus 4:13-20 which also displays a ridiculous custom of the time that Leviticus 4:13-20 is talking about. Yet you are ready to accept Leviticus and its teachings as scripture but not 2 Maccabees... Why the double standard? 2maccabees 12:43 in no way contradicts Isaiah 55.

Let's examine Leviticus 4:13-20, "And if the entire community of Israel errs because a matter was hidden from the eyes of the congregation, and they commit one of all of the commandments of the ord, which may not be committed, incurring guilt; When the sin which they had committed becomes known, the congregation shall bring a young bull as a sin offering. They shall bring it before the Tent of the Meeting. The elders of the community shall lean their heads [forcefully] upon the bull's head, before the Lord, and one shall slaughter the bull before the Lord. The anointed kohen shall bring some of the bull's blood into the Tent of Meeting, and the kohen shall dip his finger from the blood, and sprinkle [it] seven times before the Lord, before teh dividing curtain. And he shall then place some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the Tent of Meeting. And then he shall pour all the blood onto the base of the altar [used] for burnt offerings, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. And he shall separate all its fat from it and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar. He shall do to the bull just as he did to the bull of the offering thus he shall do to it. Thus the kohen shall make an atonment for them [the community]. and they will be forgiven."

I fail to see how this is ridiculous as in verse 1 and 2, the Lord is clearly speaking; thus you are saying God is ridiculous.

The community of Israel refers to the Great Sanhedrian (or the Supreme Court of Israel, seated at the Hoy Temple). -Torath Kohanim 4:241

"because a matter was hidden" means that the Sanhedrin issued an erroneous decision regarding any matter
in the Torah that incurs the penalty of excision, by declaring that matter permissible. --(Hor. 7b)

"the congregation, and they commit": meant that the community acted upon their [the Sanhedrin's] decision.

Because this was a sin of ignorance, sacrifices could atone for sin. (Source: Rashi's Commentary's). Again, please show how this is ridiculous.

III. Historical Errors

A. Historical error regarding Nebuchadnezzar

This is indeed the same Nebuchadnezzar. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The Babylonian form of the name [Nabuchodonosor] is Nabu-Kudurri-usur, the second part is interpreted "O Nebo, defend my crown")...[1] Hence, they admit that they are talking about the same exact person.

B. Contradiction between Jeremiah and Braunch.

Braunch 6:2 ment seven generations, which is a lot more then secen years (which you admit). Generally, a generation is 20-22 years. From that 20*7 gives us 140 which clearly does contradict 70 years. Moreover, you argue that a generation consisted of 7, 10, 15, 30, 35, or 100 years.

7*7=49 which still contradicts Jeremiah.
10*7=70 which is in harmony with Jeremiah.
anything more is still in err.

I am [almost] out of time. I did not realise that it was 1 day debating period.


IV. References

[1] The Catholic Encyclopedia.;
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for my opponent's very well thought out reply. However I do notice he made some errors.

1. Alleged "Dropped arguments"

(1) The forgiveness of sins by alms giving

My opponent states I failed to argue/ reply to this topic. This is false. I completely answered his arguments. His argument was that alms giving for the forgiveness of sins ( Tobit 4:11 and 12:9) is contradictory to 1 John 1:7 and Paul's teachings which say " and for the blood of Jesus His son cleanses us from all sin" and " For by grace are you saved through faith, it is not of yourself".

I correctly responded by showing that there was no contradiction at as Tobit 4:11 , 12:9 mentions practices Of the Old Testament that were fulfilled and REPLACED by the teachings of 1 John 1:7 and Paul's teachings ( New Testament teachings). Customs such as alms giving for the forgiveness of sins were fulfilled and were invalidated as soon as Jesus had been crucified. The teachings of "cleansing of sins through the blood of Christ" as Jesus, Paul and John teach are the NEW and only ways of forgiveness. These NEW teachings REPLACED and nullified the OLD teachings and customs/traditions like alms giving for the forgiveness of sins. Hence there is evidently NO CONTRADICTION between Tobit 4:11,12:9 and 1 John 1:7 as well as the teachings of Paul.

(2) Money for the sins of the dead

Like I stated earlier this in now way is contradiction to biblical teachings. The book of 2 Maccabees in no place affirms nor rejects the practices as mentioned in the book. Rather 2 Maccabees and it's author hold a position of neutrality. 2 Maccabees simply records what the Jews of the time ( Judas Maccabeus and his fellows) practiced and believed. However the book does not affirm nor deny these practices but simply is a record of what happened during the Maccabean revolution. Hence 2 Maccabees is not teaching that money can atone for the sins of the dead but rather simply shows that Jews of the time believed this. Thus 2 Maccabees 12:38-45 is not in error, as judged by your beliefs, but rather your Jewish ancestors are in the wrong. You should not be having a problem with 2 Maccabees but rather with your Jewish ancestors for "they" ,not the book, are in conflict with your beliefs.

2. Alleged "false teachings"

A. "Use of magic"

My opponent says Tobit 6:5-7 promotes the use of magic and that it is absurd. However my opponent is guilty of opinionated reasoning/ arguing from his opinion. He has no right to dismiss the teachings( in Tobit 6:5-7 ) of demonology as absurd superstition because he has NEVER tried to use the teachings. Hence he is no place to pass any sort of judgment on Tobit 6:5-7 until he has either tried it or has a reliable account of someone who has tried the teachings in Tobit 6:5-7.

Magic as we both know comes from devil not from angels. The demonology as taught by the angel Raphael in Tobit 6:5-7 is thus not magic but actually affirmed demonology. As we know, angels are sinless and perfect servants of The Lord our God. So since these teachings came from an angel of The Lord then that means these teachings came from God. Are you accusing God of teaching magic? Are you accusing God of teachings men how to sin via his angels??

B. Prayers for the dead

*Note: I retract my argument against Leviticus for I was guilty of reading the verses out of context.

Prayers for the dead is an affirmed Catholic teaching. Prayers for the dead is in no way contradictory to biblical teachings. As seen the Jews of old in the period 200-100BC BELEIVED this to be a true doctrine. This teaching is what the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on. No prayers can save one for eternal damnation( hell). But prayers can atone for the sins of those in purgatory. As anyone in purgatory is going to heaven but is need of purgation to purify him/ her for heaven. Only through the prayers of us here on earth can their sins and imperfections be atoned for. This in no way contradicts Isaiah 55 and various other biblical teachings as you argued earlier. Hence this is a debate on Catholic and ancient Jewish doctrine vs modern Jewish doctrines. This in itself is another debate entirely.

3. Alleged historical errors

A. Your source is not stating that Judith 1:5. Is a historical error. It in fact is DEFENDING the historical accuracy of Judith 1:5. It is even referenced here ( as evidence that Judith is CORRECT. Follow that link and it will show you that Judith does not contain any historical errors but that the alleged errors only appear to be errors at face view but once they are studied in depth, these alleged historical errors are actually historically accurate. You are guilty of misreading your source.

B. Concerning Baruch 6:2 I made a HUGE mistake. I mixed my numbers up. Instead of saying Baruch 6:2 meant 7 10year generations, I said that Baruch 6:2 meant 10 7year generations which is false . I correctly meant to say that a generation was 10 years and thus it equals 70years as Jeremiah 25:11 says. I apologize for the confusion. Hence Baruch is in agreement with Jeremiah.

My historical argument

I am guessing my opponent concedes to the historical argument that. I stated at the end of my round 2 rebuttal. I guess it is impossible to argue history.


( Catholic encyclopedia)


I apologize to my opponent; but I must forfeit this debate. I did not realize that the date was only 1 day to argue, which is not enough time. Moreover, I am unfamiliar with Catholic theology.

great debate!
Debate Round No. 3


Well I am saddened that my opponent has had to forfeit the debate. I hope we will get to debate again soon. It has been an honor to debate him.


Please vote pro. :-)
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Indeed it will
Posted by Wandile 6 years ago
Thanks and so are you. This will be a very good debate :) .
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Not a problem. You are very intellegent about this subject!
Posted by Wandile 6 years ago
Sorry I meant to sya the dead sea scrolls contained Tobit, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. Thanks. Looking forward to your reply
Posted by logicrules 6 years ago
The only way one can debate this is if they agree with your ecclisiology. Your premise is based on the veracity and authority of the diaspora Jews, not councils of the RCC. In fact, scripture was never promulgated it is a census fidei.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rasheed 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I do not believe in the divinity of the Bible pro did have some interesting counterpoints. I would probably have ruled for con, but he forfeited.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF