When asked to provide a list of scripture, the extraneous books you mention didn’t make the cut. Many other books were considered of value and read, but were NOT considered scripture.
It is possible for sincere Christians to differ on many points of doctrine, since God gave us scripture and not a systematic theology text. And if you read a ST text, it is obvious why - theology is philosophy, not revelation. It often enters areas where man cannot KNOW by reason, and where God has not REVEALED, yet the pride of man insists on going there regardless.
There is a reason Paul wrote “8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2)
So yes, early Christians differed on philosophy and theology, even as modern Christians do. That is why I can disagree strongly with Catholics on many issues and still call many of them my brother and sister in Christ. God, in His time, will either clarify the issues or bring us home where we see our foolishness and repent of our vanity.
I am sorry, that is a straw man, Mr. Rogers. Origen considered them "divinely inspired." Obviously, if the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are included in the oldest extant complete Christian Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, c. AD 350), they must have been considered "scripture," by those who included them in the Bible, don't you think? Does it get any more "scriptural" than that?
Your favorite argument tool, the Chrester Beatty codex, includes the Book of Enoch, as well as the Apocrypha of Ezekiel in its collection, as well as the Old testament "Apocrypha." The Bodmer collection contains the Protoevnagelium of James, for example, showing that this 2nd century work was placed together with other books considered scripture. Also, Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch as scripture. The "Apocrypha" are not scripture in the Protestant Bible, but were considered scripture in Christian canons from the beginning (Septuagint for sure). Today, scriptures are no less uniform than they were back then.
Not only are there different books in different churches, correpsondinf to different doctrine s and beliefs, but there are different versions (translations) of the same canon, expressing a myriad of "angles" in this never-ending fabrication of religious beliefs.
There is also no doubt that doctrine was based even on texts which are not officially mentioned as scripture. The Protoevangelium of James is not scripture, yet it's the source of Catholic and Orthodox belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, a central dogma in both Churches. St. Gregory of Nyssa, a student of Origen and one of Cappadocian Fathers (who are the backbone of orthodoxy), in his early years preached universal salvation based on Gnostic sources.
It is undeniable that various beliefs that plagues Christianity then as they do today, were derived from core Christian books (Gospels, Pauline Epistles) as well as from non-canonical books. The reality on the ground simply does not fit the idealized picture of how it all came about, especially as early as you'd like it, which is what maryz objected to and quite rightly so.
The historical picture that can be discerned is just the opposite: it was a long, arduous process, and a colossal failure because Christianity was as heterodox in doctrine, beliefs, and canon then as it is today.
The only thing Christians share in common is this elusive idea, or better yet myth they call Christ, who is neatly fitted into everyone's individual mental box and who, in reality, is many different things to many different people.