I don't agree with Romans being banned. I think it belongs in the Bible. Perhaps I'm not presenting my thoughts clearly?<quoted text> To which early church fathers do you refer. And why do you disagree with Romans being banned? I'd like a personal answer from your own thinking, since you said you have given it so much thought.
Okay, let's focus on strictly the NT. For right now, forget the rest of the Bible. We can come back to it after we get this ironed out. I get the sense that you're truly interested in my views (rather than just ridicule which tends to get a bit out of hand here, including myself among the guilty.)
Everything that is currently in the NT, regardless of whether the Synod of Laodicea endorsed it or not, is what I agree with, but not just because they voted and said so. Also, more specifically, I wish to keep my arguments focused on the 4 canonical gospels, and the book of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke. I don't mind discussing the rest at a later date. If this is agreeable to you, we'll leave it open for discussion. I'm not going to cut and run. If I don't answer right away, please don't assume that I won't answer at all. I will treat you with the same respect. I can wait.