Okay I'll grant that you have a point of contention here but only because I was not explicit enough, which is my own fault. I should have clarified my position at the beginning, and will do so now.Since you accept the Laodicean Council's criteria, then you would have a Bible that contains those books approved by them, and one which does not contain the books banned by them. You brought the yard stick by which this is being measured.
The Revelation of John (not Revelations) was not in the discussion because it was not contested in this conversation.
When you made the statement about the criteria of the Laodicean Council, you didn't bother to mention that you might disagree with them on Romans or anything else.
I agree with every book that the Laodicean Synod approved of that is currently in the 66 book Protestant Bible.
The reasons are still the same as set forth by the apostlic fathers and early church fathers, and later adopted as canonical by subsequent councils.
The general criteria are that those who wrote the current canonical gospels (and I'm only referring to the gospels plus Acts here; not any epistles or OT books) were eye witnesses to what they wrote, or had interviewed eye witnesses. That's where I stand.