>>They were Christians, the proof is overwhelming!>>
There is no proof that these people, who claimed the Bible as ONE of the books that they followed, were believers in Christ.
Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and the Ahmish (love their furniture) all claim to be Christian, but they add to and/or take away from the Bible and, by default, are not qualified, per the Bible. End of issue.
Of course you disagree. When you are finished arguing with the Bible about it, let us know.
I've got a book on the Nazi persecution of the churches. When Nazi soldiers went into new enemy territory, the first people they killed were evangelical preachers.
Niiiice. Throw out the Catholics with the Nazis and McVeigh. Just so you know, it is Catholic doctrine that revelation is complete in the scriptures. (For instance, while 2 Maccabees is the plainest exposition of offering atonement, Catholics also point to 2 Peter, Revelations and the gospels.) At the time of Christ, there was only one canon that included the Mosaic books, the prophets and the writings. That canon was the Septuagint. When a Hebrew canon was formalized DECADES AFTER CHRIST, the deuterocanonicals were excluded because they depicted an imminent Messiah and the resurrection of the body. IOW, they were conclusively Christian. It was these books that Luther excluded, falsely believing that the Masoretic texts were pre-Christian.
Even so, no Catholic doctrine is based on the deuterocanonical books. In many instances, they are the plainest exposition of certain doctrines, such as sacrificial expiation, but that doctrine is found in 2 Peter, Revelations and the gospels, as well.
You can sincerely state that Catholics misinterpret the bible. That is your opinion, and it is a valid one. If you state that the Catholics add to the bible, you are a liar.