In your opinion, why should the Acts of Paul and Thecla be included in the New Testament?
The whole process of assembling the canon of scripture was one that much attention has been paid to by historians, and it is clear that significant care was taken about which accounts to include in the Bible and which to leave out. One of the major arguments for accepting the contents of the Bible as they are is that this process was a process that God was part of, and thus it can be trusted. In addition, with respect to this particular account, Tertullian reports that this text was forged by Presbyter of Asia, who confessed that he did create this text. As a result of this account, Pope Gelasius therefore placed the Acts of Paul and Thecla in with the list of apocryphal books that for various reasons did not make it into the final selection of books to be included in the Canon of Scripture.
It is interesting however that a large number of early Christians credited this text and saw it as being genuine. Various important thinkers in the early church, such as Basil of Seleucia, esteemed Thecla and referred to her in their own writings. Others concurred with this opinion. At the end of the day, however, the majority of thinkers believe that because it was not included in the Canon and did not meet the exacting process of deciding which books were authentic and genuine, and which were not, it was right to have been left out. Trust plays a major part in the acceptance of the Canon of Scripture, and this therefore indicates that it should not be included.