Ok, then you say that at some point in history, some as yet unidentified people "rejected from the beginning [that which was not Scripture]".
Who?
What were their criteria for "rejecting some" and "accepting others"?
Did you know that for centuries the Book of Revelation was not considered "obviously Scripture"? It's veracity was actually, for many centuries, debated. Did you know that, or are you going to say to me, "That's man made history; who cares what your Catholic scholars say" (by the way, plenty of non-Catholic scholars say the same thing about Revelation's history).
The point is staring in front of your face, that there are no "table of contents" in the Bible. So, you have no way of verifying that the books in the Bible SHOULD be in there, by using the Bible ALONE. You need history as a source of THEOLOGICAL knowledge, whether you want to admit it or not.
Are you a Monty Python fan? I love the taunts of the French. Not proud of it, but that’s how I feel right now :-)
I KNOW many people argued whether James, 2 Peter, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews were Scripture or not. That men took a while to recognize what God had authored merely shows why nobody can trust Rome - the RCC is an organization of men!
Here’s a good site for church history. http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/hall.htm have a look and let me know which parts make your head explode - just kidding about the explosion part.