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.
I don't see how you can be sure the belief didn't precede the Protoevangelium and so ended up being included in it.
No. Books collected together do not mean all are considered scripture. The Apocrypha was collected with the OT, yet not considered God’s word by the Jews (or Protestants, generally).