Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Catholic Bible to create the Protestant Bible ?

Question

Were they the Jewish parts........ ?

I know Martin Luther (Germany) hated the Jews with a passion.

And Protestants say he was guided by the Holy Spirit ?
.

Answer 1

You have that backwards. The CAtholic church included the Apocrypha for a couple of centuries, which had been rejected by the majority of the church in prior ages.

Luther and the rest of the reformers simply went back to the Bible as was accepted by the 1st 2nd and 3rd century leadership. -- 66 books, 40 authors. Validated by both the prophets and apostles. Neither Christ, nor the Apostles nor the early church ever quoted from the Apocrypha. It simply doesn't meet the standard for Biblical revelation.

It is, however, interesting commentary on historical events after the last prophet Malachi and before John the Baptist.

Luther's opinion on the Jews was formed by his cultural experience and by his reading/understanding of the condemnation of the religious leadership of the 1st century for rejecting Christ.

However, that has nothing to do with the Apocrypha. The entire 39 books of the old testament was written by Israelite-Jews. All of the writers of the New Testament were Israelite-Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. The only exception was Luke, who was a Grecian Jew that believed Jesus was the Messiah.

It is not possible to be a Christian without acknowledging the great debt that the Church has to the historical community of Jewish-Israel.

True Christians pray for their repentance and belief in the Messiah that they rejected. Their rejection of him resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem, as God removed all security and blessing due to their disobedience - just as he said he would.

Answer 2

The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books.

The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.

The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.

The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.

The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 + 27 = 73 Books total.

1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.

Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

Martin Luther had absolutely little to do with Protestants not accepting the books you are referring to.
After much scrutiny over every book that has been accepted into the canon of Holy Writings that we call the Holy Bible, each having to meet certain qualifying points and tests, the "removed" books were not REMOVED at all, but never accepted. Martin Luther was not a lover of the Jewish people, but he had little influence in the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. His actions to separate from the Catholic Church was for much different, although admirable, reasons. No one except Jesus in our history is without sin and very few of any of our so-called heroes were doing anything except what they felt was right at the time. History records SOME of them as true revolutionaries and heroes, but several made the correct steps for the bettement of the rest of us. Read some more history about him and the King James Bible. The only way to take "Jewish" parts out of the Bible is to take away every writer of scripture and remove Jesus! The so-called Protestant (those who protested selling indulgences, Latin lauguage, etc.) Bible is still VERY Jewish due to who wrote it and who is all about!! "All protestants" do not say this and very few agree on much. Many say it was divine guidance to protest the (then) corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church before the reconstruction era, and Martin Luther was one who precipitated some good changes, even if we can't agree with his prejudices. Wonder if all our thoughts and beliefs are just like God? We can appreciate our heritage and history without agreeing with personal flaws or religious positions or doctrines who moved us forward.

Answer 4

Part of the myth that Catholics are not Christians is that we put no importance on the Bible. Myths are contradictory or have more than one form, some say that we are forbidden to read it. Because the reason for many of the twentieth century innovations in (American) Christianity are Bible based and because Catholics obviously, by observation or rumor, reject them, it is concluded we ignore the Bible. The truth is that we read the Bible in a very conservative way and do not find "new things" in it that have been ignored (or interpreted more benignly) in the past. We hold that no one passage trumps the rest of scripture or divine revelation. Many people don't know that meat comes from animals and fruit from trees. Do not be surprisedd the are unfamiliar with the history of Christianity and the Bible. The literal meaning of the text is the basis for all meaning in the Bible. Parts of the Bible are fiction, fable, and myth. It is not a science textbook. It is inerrant with respect to matters of faith and morals. An irresponsible understanding scripture is without merit or consequence no matter how fervent the one who holds it.

Answer 5

At the time the Bible was put together into book form, there was a major disagreement as to what should make up the Old Testament. Martin Luther agreed with the Jewish or Hebrew Bible and did not accept the Catholic Theologians. He was a former Catholic so perhaps his views were prejudicial.

Answer 6

Luther didn't have a whole lot to do with it.

But to answer your question, no, it wasn't "the Jewish parts." Quite to the contrary, it was the portions of the Old Testament for which there were no original Hebrew manuscripts available. The lack of original Hebrew manuscripts caused the Jews to reject these portions as canon in their Bible; and for better or worse, the Protestants were simply returning the Old Testament to the same text found in the Hebrew Bible.

Answer 7

" The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Macabese 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iranians, Tortellini, and Clement of Alexandria used the apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable Origin and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamie, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Obit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 8

This is not true.

Actually in 1546 at the Council of Trent the RCC added several extra books to the Bible. They are called Duetero Canonical books since they were added later to the Canon of Scriptures.

Martin Luther was raised Roman Catholic and trained him to hate Jews.

Pastor Art

Answer 9

You do err, the difference in Luther and the Catholic is that Martain wanted the people to have a bible, the Catholic Church oppose it as it does to day. when you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you are not getting the Word of God, you are getting the words of the Catholic Church

For Jesus said I come in My Father's name and you believe me not, another shall come in his own name and him you will believe.

Answer 10

Someone did remove the books. There is some debate as to whether it was actually him or not.

The Bible of the Eastern Orthodox church has even more books, apparently.