Quoted:


Nice try, however Jesus and the Apostles quoted the GREEK translation of the septuagint 300 out of ~315 times in scripture. As of ~250 BC the apocrypha was absolutely included in the septuagint. Its amazing how revisionist protestant history becomes. . .

Quoted:



Again, yes he did.

The canon of Scripture is the list of 73 books that belong to the Bible. The earliest writings of the Bible were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. The writing of Scripture continued until the first century A.D., when Revelation was complete.

Seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and Orthodox and Apocryphal by Jews and Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries B.C. Their omission in Protestant Bibles leaves a chronological gap in salvation history.

The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.

With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew. (In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.

The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books.

In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.

As such, and if you want to throw Pontifical Authority behind it, the 73 books of the Bible were considered signed, sealed, and delivered no later than 405AD, 1100 years before Luther decided to change them. The Bible he would have used as a Catholic Priest had 73 books. The same one he would have read at Mass. He took it, and ripped out what he didn't like.

Trent simply restated what Innocent I had established over a millennium earlier: the 73 original books were STILL the 73 books.

ETA: The part in blue is taken from EWTN, where this question has long since been asked and put to bed. It was the first reference I found upon searching. There are others. I didn't want anyone thinking I'd written all that as my own work.

Quoted:


In my experience and in no particular order:

-Evangelical fundamentalists who, for the most part, disapprove of Catholic "doctrines" that aren't.  These are your Mary/idol worship-mongers, the "Catholics aren't saved", whore of Babylon types.  

-Episcopalians who left the RCC over one of many disagreements, but wanted to retain the feel of the RC liturgy.  In my experience this ranges from former RC Priests who wanted to marry and have families to women who wanted to be priests and folks who divorced and wanted to remarry without going through the annulment process.  The Episcopal Church has a similar process, but from it is far less involved, especially for second marriages.  IIRC, third marriages have to be approved by the Episcopal bishop.  Conservative Episcopalians are largely aligned with the RCC and many from both churches hope for reunification.

-Liberal protestants who think that the RCC oppresses women because the can't be priests (nice juxtaposition with the Evangelicals who think we worship Mary), think that the RCC hates the same-sex attracted because it excludes them from "marriage", and those who think that the RCC has no business in the reproductive choices of women, be they abortion, abortifacient contraceptives, or other artificial contraceptives.  Some overlap with liberal Episcopalians here.

Many of the Lutheran/Methodists I know just think that the RCC is a little bit wacky and that there's a little too much guilt and too many rules, but don't have huge heartburn with the RCC.  Look for this to change as more mainline Protestant denominations embrace gay marriage.

Quoted:


Yes, this. I was raised in a very conservative Lutheran sect, and nothing was mentioned of Luther's anti-semitism. Was a bit of an eye opener when I came across it.

Quoted:





I don' either. Some blame the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Christ, when actually it was the Romans that carried it out.

In truth, it was the sins of every one of us that He willingly shed His life's blood for.



From what I've read about Luther, even though I'm not a follower of his, he was pro Israel until they rejected his teachings. Then he became very anti-semitic.

Quoted:



If anything, Christianity is more Jewish today than Judaism, in that it is the fulfillment of Judaism.