That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.
One can’t ask Scripture to tell you what books of Scripture to include... since the very Scripture you ask might not be Scripture! For example: you (as a non-Catholic) would likely not consult 2 Maccabees to find out if any other book is genuine... correct? But why not? If 2 Maccabees contradicts Luke (it doesn’t, BTW), then logic would not be able to decide between the two; is 2 Maccabees false because it contradicts Luke, or is Luke false because it contradicts 2 Maccabees?
Again: it’s all well and good to have a sentimental attachment to a given canon of Scripture; but logic is rather ruthless—it doesn’t CARE whether we “like” (or even love) the tradition or person who gave us the original collection of books. Logic is concerned only with clear definitions, true premises, and valid conclusions which follow from those premises. So... aside from the fact that you inherited the 66-book canon from Luther (and other 16th-century people), how do you prove that your collection is the correct one?
(N.B. Please, I beg of you: before you ask me how the Catholic Church proves its own canon—and I’ll address that later, if you like—please answer this question first. Anything less would be a mere appeal to “tu quoque”, which is a textbook fallacy; pointing out the allegedly leaky boat of your neighbor won’t stop your own boat from sinking.)
That premise would apply if Scriptures were not Divinely Inspired. It also shows the mindset you approach from. Man-made.
Did you review the Scriptures posted? Or are you approaching the subject as would a skeptic or atheist who deny the Scriptures are Inspired?