The first Christians weren't Bible Christians

[Aractus]

You follow cherished Myths about the Catholic Church propagated by those who refuse to acknowledge Historical facts and rewrite History so that they have some of what appears to be credibility.

Haha, wrong. I've done my own research.

The Church never added seven books. Early Christians accepted the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals.

Then explain to me why the Septuagint book of Daniel was removed and replaced with the Theodatian book of Daniel? And how about while you're at it you tell me when and why this occurred? And while you're at it could you tell me when "the" LXX was written?

Martin Luther removed them in the 16th century.

He didn't remove them, they continued to be published in Protestant Bibles, under the heading "Apocrypha", which is the term that Jerome used for those books.

The Septuagint which was the Old and New Testament translated by about 70 to 72 Jewish scholars into Greek, which was the popular language of the time. The entire New Testament was written in Greek and the Jews who rejected the Apocrypha (because it was written in Greek) at the council of Jamnia, also rejected Christ and the whole New Testament.

Hahahahaha. The LXX is not a "single translation" by a group of any number of scholars, in fact many of the books may not have been translated by scholars at all. The Council of Jamnia is an historical event, however the Jews did not alter their canon. They discussed the canonology of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, and kept their canon as it was - the Palestinian Jews never removed any books from their scriptures (the Samaritans did though).

Early Christians accepted the Deuterocanonicals until the time of Martin Luther, more than 1500 years later.

Jerome rejected them.

In the first four centuries, Church leaders generally recognized these seven books as canonical and Scriptural, following the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome in 382. The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus(fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus(450) include the (unseperated) Deuterocanonical books.

And neither of them contain the original LXX version of the book of Daniel, as I've now pointed out several times.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran contained the book of Tobit. Christians accepted the Apocrypha until the reformation.

The DSS also contained plenty of other non-canonical books, plus they contained lists of scripture (in fact confirming the Book of Daniel's canonical status) and in these lists do not list any of the 7 Apocrypha. You seem to be quoting very selective facts.

Where from the Bible did Martin Luther get the authority to take them out? He wasnt soloscriptura afterall.

He didn't take them out, his Bible contained the OT the Apocrypha and the NT.

Bishop Mileto of Sardis, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Wusebius, and Bishop of Caesarea, were some of the various Bishops of the Catholic Church who decided which list of books was to be in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Pope Damasus 382 AD prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books. The Council of Hippo in 393AD approved that these books were dvinely inspired. The Council of Carthage (in North Africa 397AD) approved the same OT and NT Canon. It was Catholic Bishops who decided which books would be in the Bible. Jesus did not leave his early followers with a Bible, he left them with a Church.

That isn't entirely accurate because you're picking up the story from the fourth century, when we know that in the second century most if not all of the NT was being read as scripture.

The Bible is a Catholic book and Protestant Churches get their Bible and many of their traditions from the Roman Catholic Church. The founding Father of the Protestant reformation was a Catholic Priest and every protestant denomination can trace itself back to the Catholic Church.

Again, you've been taught the history you're parroting back, but it's selective and in some parts very wrong.

The 4th century church was not the Roman Catholic Church - it was the holy catholic church and later in the 9th century there was an eastern-western split into Orthodox and Catholic; neither the Orthodox nor the RCC has a legitimate claim to being the original church. At some point the RCC demanded that the Patriarch of the Orthodox church recognize the Catholic Pope as the legitimate leader of the church. If history happened the way you say then explain why the Orthodox church has a different NT canon?

THe First Protestants took the Catholic BIBLE
Do you get your Bible from the Catholic CHurch? The inventors of Protestantism did

We actually got the OT portion from the Masorete Jews. Neither the RCC nor the Orthodox church had bothered preserving it. Sure they both believed the LXX was better, but now due to modern scholarship and, and I can't emphasise this enough, due to the discovery of the DSS we now know the MT text to be wonderfully preserved and of far higher quality, and near identical to the texts found in the DSS. And we also now know that LXX was cobbled together over time, we don't know who translated the books, but we do know some books were translated better than others.

At some point Christians had stoped reading from the Hebrew scriptures, and this was probably in the 3rd or 4th centuries. This was a very grave mistake, and a mistake on which the RCC and Orthodox churches decided to build their legacy. It most likely had a lot to do with anti-Semitic beliefs.

I might remind you of what I pointed out before, Luke - the author that wrote the most in the NT by number of words - quotes from Hebrew scriptures, he has learned from and reads the Hebrew scriptures. So you need to re-think how the first Christians read the OT. We know that in mid 2nd century there were 4 or 5 different Greek translations of the OT and of those only "the" LXX has survived in full.