“You must have a lot of time on your hands to keep up this charade of a discussion.”
At the very least it would take two for a charade of a discussion. Take a good hard look at yourself.
“I posted NO falsehoods.”
Yes, you did.
Example:
“Catholic anti-Protestants, being not well enough educated about things Christian as taught in the Holy Scriptures, often make mistakes such as concluding Jesus and the Apostles were liars when they said such things as...”
Concluded that Jesus and the Apostles were liars? That’s clearly a falsehood.
“You unbelievably even continue to assert that Luther removed books from “his” Bible”
Did he or did he not do the following two things:
1) Remove the Deutercanonicals from the canon by his own fiat.
2) Degrade NT books - such as James - from the canon by denying that they were of Apostolic authorship. There’s even a specific term for the grouping of NT books by Luther which he considered to not be scripture: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
“You can’t back it up, can you? EXACTLY!”
Placing books within a volume does not mean you grant those books the same status as scripture. I had a vulgate that had books in the appendix. They’re not viewed as scripture. Luther cut books from the Bible. The fact that they were physically present in the volume doesn’t mean he considered them canonical. Again, the appendix in my vulgate had books in it that were viewed by scripture.
1) Remove the Deutercanonicals from the canon by his own fiat.
He did not.
There was no such thing as "Deuterocanonicals" (for that word had not yet been invented) when what Luther did do -- which was to move certain writings long recognized by the Church (at least those who bothered to read), following Jerome's prologues concerning the writings in question to be regarded as less than fully canonical, to an Appendix.
As late as the production for the Complutensian Polyglot, Latin bibles then in circulation still carried the admonitions of Jerome against viewing those writings as equal to all the rest of OT (as did the Polyglot itself, carrying forward to that day the prologues which indicated those writings as not part of OT canon proper).
Cardinal Catejan wrote during this same era that the so-called deuterocanonicals were not themselves indiscriminately 'canonical'.
AND -- the voting at Council of Trent for full, indiscriminate inclusion for what at that time became known by the 'deutero' moniker (second, even "secondary" as second rank possibly, in the minds of a few of those who voted for inclusion at Trent) was still less than fully unanimous, even with the chosen, possibly misleading, let's-have-it-both-ways moniker (needing to bury the previous term "Apocrypha", which Jerome himself used when referring to those particular writings).
Being that the voting was less than unanimous, then all those whom voted against full and indiscriminate inclusion were just as "heretical" as was Luther himself on this issue, or else just as much themselves, "removing" books from canon, only not themselves altering order of placement within bound codex (while providing translation accessible for the many, which none of these others that I know of, themselves undertook as task).
So as usual for Roman Catholics on this forum, you are more wrong than you are right.
Being only a "little bit" correct simply doesn't cut it.
Your words here (as is typical for RC apologetics rhetoric) are as highly misleading as they are entirely polemical.
I posted NO falsehoods. You have YET to address the actual question of the contradiction between Roman Catholic proclamations and what Scripture clearly states. Until you actually do that, keep playing your little gotcha games with yourself. I have better things to do.