LOL They didn't want it? It was on 6 lists. I don't care if they didn't want it, which you have no way of knowing so you are just blowing hot air, I LOVE IT, AND IT MINISTERS TO ME. Not only that, but it is needed more now, than it was then as Jesus is coming soon, whereas back then it was centuries away. God has protected and preserved it and it was no coincidence that when found, it was minutes away from being burned for fuel. That's God. If that is foolishness to you, so be it.
It doesn't matter if it was on 6 lists. Anyone can make a list. The first New Testament canon known was a false canon by Marcion in 140 A.D.
When you say, 'I love it, and it ministers to me', you set yourself up as the one who determines whether or not a book should be included into the canon of the New Testament. As I said, you can enjoy the book all you want. But don't try and make it worthy of being Scripture.
I at least answered your question. And all you have to say is I am blowing hot air. You avoid my questions because they bring you to a conclusion you don't want to admit.
Here are some hot air quotes to consider.
(The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP, 1988, p. 41-42) "When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon.....when in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to 'the scriptures', they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents....But,
as later with the New Testament, so with the Old Testament it is probable that, when the canon was 'closed' in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that
official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community."
From the same as above: p. (130) "What is important is this: from the early second century onward Paul's letters circulated not singly, but as a collection. It was as a collection that Christians of the second century and later knew them, both orthodox and heterodox."
From the same as above: p. (131) "Before the production of this collected edition, a beginning had already been made with gathering some of Paul's letters together. He himself encouraged the churches of Colassae and Laodicea, two neighbouring cities in the Lycus valley of Phrygia,
to exchange letters which they had received from him (Col. 4:16)."
From the same as above: p.(131-132) "It might be expected that local collections of letters would be made at an early stage....."
From the same as above: p. 282-283) "Certainly, as one looks back on the process of canonization in early Christian centuries, and remembers some of the ideas of which certain church writes of that period were capeable,
it is easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion on the limits of the canon they were directed by a wisdom higher than their own....But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that '
the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that '
the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they do still, because the Kyrios Christ speaks in them."
If you want to say the book of Barnabas speaks to you and so to you it is Scripture, go ahead. But that doesn't make it Scripture. It just makes it your own special canon. Which is why the need for a canon existed in the first place.
Stranger