the new new testament???

Again, that's obviously false. There is not one single canon; there are many. Therefore, there is not one single set of non-canonical books; there are many.Obviously, they did choose between canonical and non-canonical and they did make different choices based on different agendas.

Have you read the OP? This thread is your opportunity to show why your chosen canon should remain sacrosanct. The challenge is for you to demonstrate that other documents don't meet your own standards for inclusion in the canon.If you can show in specific detail why certain books were not included in your canon, please do so. But you also have to show why the new documents discovered in the past 150 years should not be included.And why do you keep quoting Wikipedia articles that don't support your position?

That isn't specific. Name the people. Show that they had access to "the" detailed facts. Show what those detailed facts were. Show that they were there.But that isn't even what I asked you. I asked you to demonstrate that the non-canonical books - and the documents that have been discovered after the canons were set in stone - do not meet the same standards. That's the point. Why are some books in some canons and not in others?I guess you don't know.Because all you're saying is that the compilers of your prefered canaon musta known what was accurate and what wasn't. Yet you can't seem to supply any specifics.