This is what I was looking for. Let me know if I missed something above that you wanted to discuss. Right now I have something to chew on.
Reading ypur answer you say that GoT was about hidden knowledge and that John was known by face and because John wrote against gnostic that it is so. But there are some assumptions in there. But let me ask some questions regarding your answer. Who knew John by face and are you saying this matters because no one knew Thomas by face? Also, how do we know a writing of John's is not a forgery? From my knowledge the whole Church did not endeavor to compile all acceptable Books until the 3rd century and nothing was formal (it seems) until the 4th century. In the 3rd century no one would know the face of John or Thomas and I still do not know why that matters.
Have you read the GoT? Here's a sample (
A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas):
2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
Reply--SUp--But Paul preached the Good News, not a disturbance. Make a joyful noise unto the LORD.
12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
Reply--SUp--Now we know why it was excluded

. C'mon no apostle would write that stuff. The point is, like the false Thessalonica letter written by "Paul", the GoT was not truly written by an apostle. And quite simply, it is not part of canon.
"CoR promotes reincarnation, priests, altars, and sun worship is what you write. The NT writes of priests and so that should not matter. I believe the NT speaks of altars too and so I am not sure why that matters. Reincarnation and sun worship huh??? I do not recall that when I read it. But regardless, who decided if it should be included?
We differ. There's no priests (only presbyters) and there's no altars of sacrifice in the NT. I already acknowledged, however, that some wanted it part of canon, but I can assure you that there is no way God would allow it to ever be considered His word.
My understanding is that the Church was developing a canon slowly over decades because at times there were questions if something could be trusted. These writings were used daily in the Divine Liturgy or what Catholics commonly call the Mass. The Whole Church was developing this in the 3rd through 5th century, as I recall. That is not to say that some wrote a letter as to books they felt should be included. The Gospels were generally accepted by all and we have early letters saying as much. Some of the Books like Revelation were not seen so surely as the others.
Well, we'd differ on the Mass thingy. Scripture says they were written that we might believe on Him who God sent.
Allot going on here...
What about Jude? And why Paul?
Jesus chose the 12 and only 11 were left after Iscariot killed himself. The next to be in the office that Iscariot left was Matthias. Yes, the Twelve is how some of the ECFs referred to the Apostles. But why Paul? He was behind the deaths and punishment of many Christians after Jesus rose to Heaven. Becuase Jesus chose him. For what? To help make the Gentiles part of the Family of God. Peter and Paul were also seen as the main figureheads as well. The Early Church saw reliability in Peter and Paul in Rome. So we can see why Paul was chosen. But why Judas? And why not any of these other books that Christianity was using?
We have to distinguish like they did. Surely you don't think that Christians continued to use that false Thessalonica letter?
The Didache seems like a pretty good tool. But the Books were being chosen for the Divine Liturhy and maybe this did not fit?
Divine Liturgy had zero to do with it. In fact, the Didache has stuff in it on DL (it only mentions bishop and deacon, never priest. it only mentions eucharist as thanksgiving (now we know why it was rejected

) Anyway, the compiling of canon had to do with the phrase in Romans 10:6-21, who will ascend to bring Christ down and who will descend to bring Christ up? But it is nigh thee. That was written by Paul to the Romans. He copied it from Moses (Deut) who wrote the same to the Israelites before he would die. Moses would die, the apostles would die. The point is that God gave us scripture, the written word. These men knew they were going to die and wrote it down and instructed the faithful to pass it around.
But, I will say this also, both in the OT and for us in the NT, men still have put up their traditions.
The ECFs that decided based their decisions on three things and that the Paraclete guide them. In this they used Oral Traditions and Written. They used writings from the Books we know as the NT and writings from many others. The writings otside what we use as the NT held the Oral Tradition still written down. The Church also had knowledge that all agreed on. The Paraclete worked through these men using all the resources available to create a collection of Books that could be trusted because the whole church agreed on it and knowing they had both Oral and Written reminders and knowing God was there with them.
Why did Jesus rename Peter? Why did Jesus rename James and John, the sons of Zebedee? What is a key component when they included Matthias pre lot? What was Paul's claim as an apostle?
If we read through Paul's, Peter's, John's, Jude, James letters, they mention brethren, some by names. The apostlic eyewitnesses didn't operate in a vacuum, leaving their record to chance.
I know tradition and councils arose. But look at Athanasius before any council rubberstamped what they knew:
3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand
45434543
Luke i. 1. ,’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed
552good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
I know he wrote 300 years after the fact, but look at his words. They point backward: "have been fully persuaded as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses ... learned from the beginning, included in the Canon, handed down, accredited as Divine". He is not so foolish or boastful as to make the claim that tradition or council made these decisions.