“...not a rebellion or de-formation of the church catholic, but a purifying of doctrine to conform it to scripture. “
Laughable - since Luther ripped 7 books out of the Bible. Luther just wanted to conform scripture to his theology, not the other way around.
I presume you were aware that three quarters of the Bible is completely missing from your mass?
Know a ‘book’ that could, in fact, benefit by a ‘ripping out’; too bad Luther did work on ‘that’ one. Imagine an authentic ‘reformation’ of the Koran. . .
Even JEROME did not want to put the Apocrypha in his translation but was ordered to do so by the Pope.
New Testament Books Luther did not want...
These books were never considered scripture by the early church. All Christians settled on the following books as scripture as there were too many false gospels floating around at that time.
The four Gospels.
Acts.
The letters of Paul except Hebrews.
1Peter.
1 John.
And that was it.
The reason the others were not included was...
Hebrews, uncertain authorship. I love this book!
James. Appeared to contradict Paul and was considered an “epistle of straw”.
2 Peter. Sounds different from the authorship of 1Peter.
2&3 John. Considered private correspondence.
Jude. Mentions a verse from Enoch.
Revelation (Apocalypse) Uncertain authorship and fantasy.
Several hundred years later these books were added, but there was a problem with Revelation and Hebrews.
The Greek Church wanted Hebrews, but not Revelation.
The Latin Church wanted Revelation but not Hebrews.
So they compromised and put both books in. Even today Revelation is not read in Greek churches.
At least they kept THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS out!