To answer his other question, and yours, I use Yah's standard for determining what writings are Scripture: prophecy. If a book contains accurate predictions and no inaccurate ones, it is inspired. Further, we know that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are Scripture because Yahushua consistently said that they were THE source of reliable truth. He quoted regularly from the Tanach and paraphrased many sections of the OC. Personally, other than Revelation, I view the RC as what it claims of itself, that being the writings of people who were close to Yahushua. Remember, Paul met with him in Arabia as did Moses, so this includes him. The RC never claims to be Scripture. However, since most of the RC is either an OC citation, an OC paraphrase, an OC explanation, or an OC fulfillment, most of it is self confirming.

There are two additional confirmations I use. The first is consistency. If the writing style and content are the same as the books we know are inspired, that serves to bolster its case. The second is preponderance of old MSS (those from the third century BCE through the third century CE). As confirmation of this, the most quoted book by Yahushua is the same book in which the most copies were found in Qumran: YahshaYahu/Isaiah.

This system leaves all of the current Old Covenant canon unquestioned with the exception of Esther (no prophecy and not in the DSS), and Ruth, Samuel, and Chronicles (limited prophecy). In the Renewed Covenant, based upon the 70 pre-Constantine MSS, the question marks are: Mark (1), First & Second Timothy (0), Titus (1), Philemon (1), First & Second Peter (1), and First & Second John (1 & 0). By comparison, we have 18 MSS of Mathew, 19 of John, and 5 or 6 old manuscripts of books like Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation.

As for books which are contested, and considered by some to be authentic and others to be apocryphal, I dismiss all of the RC contenders because there aren't any 1st through 3rd century MSS to legitimize them and most are polluted with Gnostic dogma. The Qumran scrolls support in a very limited way the appropriateness of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch/Jeremiah's Letter, and Tobit, but I am unaware of their prophetic credentials. Further, anything written after the early sixth century (500 BCE) is suspect. There is no evidence of a prophet after that time. Books written as histories during the period between 500 BCE and 40 CE (like Maccabees) are useful and interesting, but probably not inspired.

When it comes to what is included in Yada Yahweh, I simply follow Yah's lead. He tells me what He wants done next and I do it.

I hope this helps.

Yada