“That may be you but the world is not made according to you. I have to go by what the Christian world did and history doesn’t support your claim.”
What the Christian churches did was recognize the Gospels and Acts and Paul’s epistles and 1 Peter as scripture from the start. They had doubts about some of the others, which persisted for a long time. But then, I’d happily discuss theology using the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles and 1 Peter...
The other books you mention were not recognized as scripture. Look at the record - when lists of NT scripture were prepared only Codex Claromontanus (400? AD) listed the Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter & Epistle of Barnabas.
“By A.D. 200, twenty-one of the books of the New Testament had a secure position in the canon. In the course of discussion it was possible to group a book according to one of three categories: (1) the homologoumena or universally accepted writings; (2) the antilegomena or disputed books, accepted by some churches but challenged by others; and (3) the notha or clearly spurious documents. During the third century, James, Jude, Second and Third John, Second Peter, and Hebrews were frankly disputed in different sectors of the church, so that Origen and Eusebius classified them among the antilogomena. (6) Revelation had enjoyed wide acceptance at the beginning of the century, but in the ensung years it was subjected to challenge and discrimination. The dispute over questions of authorship, authenticity, style, and doctrine subsided by the middle of the fourth century, and these documents also took their place in the lists of books accepted by the bishops of the church. The church fathers Jerome and Augustine acknowledged the entire twenty-seven books of the canon, as did the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. By the end of the fourth century the limits of the New Testament canon were irrevocably settled in both the Greek and Latin churches. Only in the churches of Syria and elsewhere in the East did the question continue to be debated. Even here all of the books accepted elsewhere in the church finally achieved recognition.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/barker1.html
Your list is incomplete. I went into lengthy detail (for your benefit) to show you that other books (besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles)for doctrinalm purposes and you ignore it.
I showed you that some churches considered some books diametrically opposed. I showed you that doctrine was not based and is not based solely on the core books of the NT, but that other books played and play a role in the formation of doctrine.
I showed you that doctrine in various churches was heterodox just as the canons were. Your seem to reject or ignore all that and insist that the important thing is that everyone agreed on the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. Rubbish.
Your list mentions only "churches" rather than bishops or individual apologetics (except Origen), even though "churches" did not decide what to read but the bishops—a fact which you also ignore because it runs counter to the Baptist fairytale of Christian "democracy".
I suppose, ignoring the facts is one way to create the world just as you like it. Why not! After all, you yourself admit that Protestants do exactly that when it comes to theology. Otherwise they don't believe it. It's got to be their way or highway. What else is new? We don't want the truth to get in the way of fairytales.
Mary, I believe I answered your request. Apparently is has encountered a brick wall. Good luck.