Yeshua1 : "...all of the recognized canon scriptures were accepted and [j]in use by early second century!"
Not only do you refuse to watch videos that refute your position, but you pontificate on the canon without ever reading a solid academic book on canonicity (e. g. by Grant or von Campenhausen). If you had, you'd realize that there was no consensus about the NT canon until after 200 AD.
Yeshua: "And Rome did add to the inspired books non inspired books, as its ONLY in those books they can find their doctrines from!"
First, most Baptists are so close-minded that they lack the integrity to watch posted interviews that decisively refute their position. You are no exception. Both my posted video and my shorter summary of the Catholic biblical position refute your simplistic Gospel perspective. Contrary to your pontification, both provide solid biblical grounding in your Bible. Sigh!
Second, there is no evidence that the current Protestant canon was that used in Jesus' and Paul's day. NT writers use the Septuagint translation and that OT canon included the Catholic apocrypha. Nor can it be shown that the Apocrypha were added after the NT era. Indeed, Jesus uses Sirach 28:3 as inspiration for the Lord's Prayer. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the canonical formula "It is written." And no, the wording is significantly different than Isaiah 64:4 and the early church father Origen identifies the Apocalypse of Elijah as the source of the quotation. Furthermore, Jude alludes to supernatural events recorded in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative.