[af_vet_1981]

1. Most of your statements are either incorrect or false. For example, "Four hundred years later the Catholic/Orthodox added a few more called the Septuagint." The Septuagint is the Greek translation of all the holy books of the Jews, not just a few more.
2. "You seem to want to discredit our Jewish forefathers and, perhaps our early Christian fathers." This assertion is completely false and and example of mind reading. Why are you claiming the Sanhedrin of 90 CE/AD your forefathers ? Do you call them spiritual fathers after the Sanhedrin decisions of the First Century ?
3. There were 22 books Josephus wrote of that were split/rearranged by the one holy catholic apostolic church.
4. The Sanhedrin rejected Jesus; rejected Him as Messiah, rejected Him as King, rejected Him as Son of God, rejected His Apostles, rejected all Jews who believed in Him and cast them out of the synagogues, rejected all the books of the New Testament, and rejected the transfer of spiritual authority from them to the one holy catholic apostolic church.
5. So when exactly did the church start?
   The one holy catholic apostolic church started when the Messiah built it on "this rock" in the First Century. He built it on the apostles and prophets with Himself as the chief cornerstone.
   
   
6. When did the inspired works start?
   
   The inspired works began with Creation, on the first day. The inspired books began with Genesis, attributed to Moses.
7. As far as the New Testament goes-that is all speculation.
   
   No; there is a historical record.
   
   Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]
   
   
   
   
   Luther's contempt for the epistle of James is clear in this excerpt from his Table Talk:
   Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. I think it was written by a Jew who had heard of the Christians but not joined them. He had learned that the Christians insisted strongly on faith in Christ, and so he said to himself, "Well, you must take issue with them and speak only of works," and so he does. He says not a word of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the text of all the other apostles. Moreover, he has no order nor method. He speaks now of clothes, now of wrath, jumping from one topic to another. He has this simile: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Mary, mother of God! He compares faith to the body, when it should be compared to the soul. (Preserved Smith, "The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible," Biblical World 38/4 (October 1911) at 242.)

[HarleyD]

There is nothing incorrect or false in my statements. The Catholic Church simply wants to paint a different history than what really exists. This isn't uncommon within the Catholic Church where "tradition" is whatever they want to make it.

Let me ask a very simple question or two. The very day AFTER Moses finished writing the first five books of the Old Testament, would you have considered his books to be inspired and inerrant? Would you have considered him to be a "spiritual father" to you?