Why hasn't there been any more books written since Revelation?

RickReads said:

In the case of Revelation the date matters due to the prevalence of Preterism. Even with all the liberties they take with scriptures they still need it to be written before 70AD.

Click to expand...

So kinda funny that one of the links you posted was from a preterist arguing for an early date. I guess you didn't read through the links very carefully.

I can think of many reasons, such as The Bible already being so long most Christians never read the entirety of it, changes in writing styles that may have not meshed with the more ancient material, or that as Christianity expanded it would have been difficult to represent the saints of all countries equally.

On a personal level I still wish they had included more over time. It would have helped show the continuous influence of Christ and the Church on human history. Had the lives of saints been set in the Bible, Christians would be more familiar with them and encouraged by their struggles and triumphs.

GallagherM said:

Do you have any idea why there has not been any more books written since Revelation?

The last book of the bible was written by John to the 7 churches, and even ends with the message of what Jesus Christ had mentioned to the 7 churches which was stated at the start of the letter.

16 `I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify to you these things concerning the assemblies (churches); I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star!

17 And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and he who is hearing -- let him say, Come; and he who is thirsting -- let him come; and he who is willing -- let him take the water of life freely.

Did Jesus Christ return and gather all of those who were meant to be taken leaving a remnant of people behind ? (Kind of like the left behind series but for us to continue in hope of the Lord Jesus Christ)?

Click to expand...

no other books were inspired by God that is why.

Actually, I like this story about Rabbi Hillel:

A Gentile who came to Rabbi Shammai and agreed to be converted if he could teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai sent him away, but Hillel welcomed him, saying: “That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary.” In some sense, the church fathers are commenting on or providing additional insight.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave.” - St. John Chrysostom.

timtams said:

So kinda funny that one of the links you posted was from a preterist arguing for an early date. I guess you didn't read through the links very carefully.

Click to expand...

I put the links up for your benefit, not mine. You made it clear that you were unwilling to have a discussion about it with me so no, I didn`t take the time to read any of it.

Benjamin413 said:

Does it really matter which books were written when?

Isn’t it more important that John wrote both of them?

Click to expand...

There's no clear consensus as to which John wrote the Apocalypse, or even as to how many Johns there are.

We can speak of three Johns, though it may only be two Johns, or even all the one and the same John:

1. John the Apostle
2. John the Presbyter
3. John the Revelator

It is somewhat interesting that of all the texts which bear the name of "John", only one of those texts identifies its author as "John". The Gospel and three Epistles that bear the name of John are nameless. The Evangelist only identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", 1 John contains no self-designation for the author, and 2 and 3 John identify the author only as "the presbyter".

In time the tradition(s) concerning the authorship of these works, and the identify of the John behind these works seems to have coalesced into the identity of St. John the Apostle, and as such the Apostle is given credit as the author of all five of the Johannine works.

This isn't too uncommon, the same sorts of things appear to have happened with other figures. For example the Gospels mention a lot of different women named Mary. So in the Western tradition, as an example, Mary of Bethany (the sister of Lazarus and Martha) is the same as Mary Magdalene, and further in the West Mary Magdalene came to be associated with the penitent prostitute. Though in the East these are three completely different women. Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are completely different Marys, and the unnamed prostitute is someone completely different as well.

It's not always easy with these things, and when we start looking at various strands of tradition--especially competing, differing traditions--trying to put them all together in a nice and tidy way usually just doesn't work; and so we are left with a lot that is simply unknown.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The Evangelist only identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", 1 John contains no self-designation for the author, and 2 and 3 John identify the author only as "the presbyter".

Click to expand...

What’s interesting…. None of the writers of the Gospel refer to themselves by name

for instance… in the Gospel of Mark


“And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭14:51-52‬ ‭

some believe Mark was speaking of himself. Others believe it was Lazarus

Benjamin413 said:

What’s interesting…. None of the writers of the Gospel refer to themselves by name

for instance… in the Gospel of Mark


“And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭14:51-52‬ ‭

some believe Mark was speaking of himself. Others believe it was Lazarus

Click to expand...

Right, the names of the four Evangelists are known only by tradition, though a very, very old tradition. As such I don't see any trouble in accepting the traditional authorship of the Gospels; but it's also a point that I don't feel a need to be dogmatic on. It's the content of the Gospels that matters, not who authored them. They also pass the test of being among the oldest texts accepted and read as Scripture in the churches. While we can't be quite sure at what point this happened, it was early enough that by the time anyone explicitly mentions there being four (and only four) Gospels it is treated as a natural fact, no different than there being four cardinal directions.

As far as the unknown naked guy in the Gospel of Mark, it's really anyone's guess. That it was Mark himself or perhaps Lazarus are a couple really common guesses, each with some interesting conjecture behind them.

-CryptoLutheran

.