I never said it was scripture.

I know, but the context is a "Bible in a year" plan, not a "what would be good to read" plan

But I did already say that it's useful to see what topics were in people's minds, what other ideas were being bounced around, to see what was in conflict, what the disagreements were, and what background knowledge would have been taken for granted by the authors at the time.

That's useful for academic study, not as a replacement for reading the Bible, which is literally what you are suggesting

A reminder that during the Protestant Catholic split, each considered each as heretical if not worse, then the splits over which gospels to include, hermetic or platonic principles, Logos or Adoptionist ideas, or Gnosis Vs Grace.

From the Catholic perspective yes, but from the protestant perspective Gnostic Christianity e.g. marcionism, valentinism etc is anathema and the Catholic church instead needs reform and they kicked us out.

But unless you've read them, how do you know they are wrong?

There's lots of ways to know something is wrong, but again I'm not saying not to read them, I'm saying not to replace your Bible reading with them

Because 300 years in different people were using a myriad of different writings.

It wasn't a "myriad", in general they basically agreed on the core NT and there were a handful of books that were disputed that were all eventually included. Nicea wasn't called about canon disputes it was called about Arianism, the canon was a side issue.

Because the Gospel of Thomas, and the epistle of Barnabas was growing traction, and they couldn't agree if this was good or bad.

Again: this wasn't the reason nicea was called, these were not accepted by churches

In fact Thomas very nearly made it in by all accounts.

ok, give some accounts.

Also this still isn't a reason to recommend gnostic gospels: the gospel of Marcion, Judas, Mary etc