As opposed to re-inventing the wheel, I'll refer to this thread


http://forums.catholic-convert.com/view ... 46&start=0

Technically, Luther did not 'remove' them, he just 'demoted' them. How a person can claim such authority for himself is beyond me. Still, in his German translation, he DID translate the deuteros but clearly noted in the prologues (why would Scripture need prologues if it is 'self interpeting'?) that the deuteros were not worthy of being called inspired nor should Christians use them to formulate doctrine. Luther did not limit this 'indictment' to these 7. He 'demoted' Hebrews and James as well. One does not have to be a genius to figure out why Luther did this. The Deuteros contain compelling evidence for purgatory, communion of saints, and praying for the dead. Hebrews contains compelling evidence for the priesthood and Eucharistic sacrifice. James flat out says that 'faith alone' is insufficient for justification. Basically, Luther took his ball and fled rather than deal with the Scriptures set forth by the Catholic Church since 397 or so. So no, books are not 'removed', but the net effect of this 'demotion' is the removal of integral Christian truth.

I'd recommend this:

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/co ... 5myths.asp

I spent lots of time on this.

http://www.signumcrucis.net/av1611.htm

-Ted

That link won't work for me. Only for users granted with "special" access. I seem to not be special enough. Hmm...guess I'll have to ask Mom why she lied to me all those years.

This comes from the website: gotquestions.org:

"
Question: "What is the Apocrypha? Do the Apocryphal books belong in the Bible?"



Answer: Roman Catholics Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Christian Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha with respect, but never accepted the Apocrypha as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha, but almost always rejected them from being included in the Bible. Probably the most conclusive argument against the Apocrypha being included in the Bible is the fact that the New Testament nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal books.



The Apocrypha teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. The Roman Catholic church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible after the Protestant Reformation because it supports some of the things that the Roman Catholic church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but if you read it, you have to treat it as a fallible historical document, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Recommended Resource: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce."

At the time of Christ, there was no canon of the OT. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, or 5 books of Moses as inspired. The Pharisees accepted what today is 29 books (for them amounted to 24 scrolls). The Alexandrian & other Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint.

The first person to compile a list of 46 OT, and 27 NT books was St. Athanasias around 352. A local council in Rome in 382 compiled the same list. Two other local councils in Carthage, and Hippo compiled the same list. The list was submitted to the Pope, who approved it.

The first General, or Ecumenical council that approved this same list was the council of Florence in the middle of the 15th. C. Trent declared it closed in the 16th. C.

The same list that contains 27 books in the NT, contains the 46 books in the OT., so if one is correct, they both are.

djorourke...makes me kinda wonder about the validity or accuracy of the got questions.com site...when it containes a few errors...or maybe just the source it uses for its answer...which might be slanted against Catholicism...not being familiar with ffbruce and his canon of scripture book, i can't say for sure

gotquestions has few answers. read some legitimate scholarship, not some ill-informed secondary sources.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ104.HTM

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001revw.asp

yeah, I don't have much experience with the site, or any with the source it refers to. But it seems to suggest that the books were added to the Bible by the Catholic church at a much later date.

which as has been shown, is completely false... they have been there since the canon was approved in 395... the canon was closed at the council of trent...which is after the reformation...which has to be what they were referring to