Someone has been feeding you false information. This link can help you to understand what REALLY happened with Luther and the canon, http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm. I really do hope you take the time to read the articles posted so that we can discuss the subject in a well-informed manner. It begins with:
Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.[10] Great care and work went into Luthers Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, The work was done with great method [11] Todd then relates this famous description:
Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctors cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.[12]
Thus, Luthers Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.
Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with Luther removed books from the canon. For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luthers Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.
How is this distinction a difference?
You continue to mock me personally, I forgive you.
Removing books from the Canon of Scripture is “removing books from the Bible.”
Martin Luther had no authority to take them out, he went
with the wrong much earlier group, saying they did the same. God doesn’t direct heretics and apostates. The
Palestinian Jews also rejected the Gospel.
And who said Martin Luther removed anything from the New Testament? He WANTED TO but was stopped. He despised the Book of James, it conflicted with his false teaching, faith alone.
I would suggest, read the quotes of the first Christians and think about authority.