I accept that you believe that, but that does not meant it is true. With all due respect it has not been demonstrated, it has only been claimed.
Peace be with you The Bible Canon was preceded by several hundred years in which the authenticity of any of the hundreds of works that claimed to be inspired and inerrant was at best dubious. Many works were clearly forged and other, although the works of actual Apostles and eye witness Disciples were not found to be inerrant. The Early Church Fathers first relied exclusively upon their own authority and the authority of the genealogy of their Tradition and then, from the Tradition produced the Creeds that survive to this day. From the Traditions and in compliance with the Creeds the Canon was issued.
The Canon was not universally accepted and many of the members of the Church, not the least of which is St. Augustine who said; I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6)
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christs own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant ; for (as one of themselves argued) if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory. Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached in the Holy Ghost (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), note that man, that ye have no company with him. To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was the commandments of the Lord (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old Bible ; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the Scriptures were not a closed but an increasing canon. Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We say that this immediate placing of the new books given the church under the seal of apostolic authority among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Pauls numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with the other Scriptures (II Pet. iii. 16) that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of Scripture (I Tim. v. 18): For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn [Deut. xxv. 4]; and, The laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: In the sacred books, . . . as it is said in these Scriptures, Be ye angry and sin not, and Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (ii. 4): And another Scripture, however, says, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas (circa 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common.
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival canon of new books which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the old books; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally Scripture with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
I hope the entire article is read because it demonstrates that this is hardly a truth that has only been "claimed".