Maybe Revelation doesn't belong in canonized Scripture?

[timtams]

Nil.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Revelation wasnt a big deal in the Eastern churches even though it is recognized as canonical. Even today, this is the only book in the NT that is not read during the liturgical cycle in the Byzantine Rite.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Revelation wasnt a big deal in the Eastern churches even though it is recognized as canonical.
Even today, this is the only book in the NT that is not read during the liturgical cycle in the Byzantine Rite.

A lot of good liturgical music comes from that divine book.
For example, the word "halleluYah" is used in only 1 chapter of the entire NT, Revelation 19 concerning the fall of the OC City of Jerusalem:

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

Revelation 19:
1 After these I hear as a great sound of a vast throng in the heaven, saying,
‘HalleluYah!
the salvation and the glory and the honor, and the power of our God;
3 And a second time they have declared<4483> ‘HalleluYah!
and Her smoke is ascending into the ages of the ages!"
4 And fall the twenty four Elders and the four living-ones,
and they worship to the GOD the One sitting upon the Throne, saying, ‘Amen! HalleluYah!"
6 And I hear as sound of a throng, much, and as a sound of waters, many, and as sound of thunders, strong saying:
"HalleluYah!
that reigns Lord the God *of-us, the Almighty.

https://israelstudycenter.com/hebrew-hallelujah/
“Hallelu” (הללו) and “Yah” (יה).

The word "ALMIGHTY" IS USED IN JUST ONE OTHER VERSE outside of Revelation in the NT...by our dear brother Paul, Hebrew of Hebrews.........

2 Corinthians 6:18
And I shall be to ye as a father
and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters is saying Lord Almighty/pantokratwr <3841>.


......................

 

[GreekOrthodox]

A lot of good liturgical music comes from that divine book.
For example, the word "halleluYah" is used in only 1 chapter of the entire NT, Revelation 19 concerning the fall of the OC City of Jerusalem:

Just because it does not get read during the liturgy does not mean that it does not influence our beliefs. Rev 19 is why our churches sometimes look like this Russian church in San Francisco, Joy of those who Sorrow:

 

[usexpat97]

My heart feels like "Revelation is in the canon, therefore it belongs in the canon". Like if God didn't intend for it to be there, it wouldn't have been. But my head says that alone is not a strong enough case for it.

 

[parousia70]

Four big problems:

1. The assumes a preterist interpretation of Revelation. It's very possible that this interpretation is wrong.

Revelation REQUIRES a preterist interpretation.
The argument can only be HOW MUCH preterism should be ascribed, not whether or not there should be ANY.

I also believe, after teaching on this book for several months, that it is very understandable and applicable to Christians today and we need to hear its message.

But it wasn't understandable and applicable to the original receivers to whom the letters were directly addressed and first delivered to? They DIDN'T need to hear its message?

(see what I mean?)

 

[Douggg]

This thread does not belong in this forum.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved to the Christian Scriptures forum.
Please note and abide by the Statement of Purpose of this forum.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[timtams]

[?

 

[mark kennedy]

FWIW, the Armenian Church did not accept Revelation until the 1700's.

I didn't know that, the book is certainly controversial. The traditional date of the writing is awkward, late in the first century seems to call into question John's authorship. The manuscript evidence is kind of weak, at least as compared to other New Testament writings. It should be noted that Hebrews and 2 Peter were also kind of controversial but managed to make it in. The Revelation and Hebrews have been a tremendous help to me understanding the link between the Old Testament and New Testament. While I can understand how it is often viewed with some suspicion I consider the allusions to the Old Testament Levitical system and the prophets make it uniquely insightful.

 

[Paidiske]

Did you never take Latin?

No. I'm pretty capable in three languages, but Latin isn't one of them.

That is, however, irrelevant to the reason for moving the thread. The question of whether or not Revelation ought to be in the canon is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of Eschatology.

 

[ewq1938]

Revelation could still be from God and inerrant--just not God's inerrant word TO US.


I submit this for peer review.

That would mean the second coming and resurrection and even the GWTJ, LOF, and NHNE Rev speaks of are past events so this entire notion should be rejected because it is full preterism.

 

[timtams]

[.

 

[JackRT]

No. I'm pretty capable in three languages, but Latin isn't one of them.

I am very fluent in English and am sort of passable in French. Having 5 years of Latin, I appreciate how it has influenced so many other languages. Oh yes, thanks to nine years in the army I am also proficient in Profane.

 

[Mathetes66]

You appear to be a prophet, predicting your own theory ('Maybe Revelation doesn't belong in canonized Scripture') won't last very long. You are correct. It didn't last very long with the majority of ancient Christianity. It was fully accepted as canonical in both the east & the west & has continued to be to the very present.

There have been very small pockets that had their doubts (as one posted on Armenia but as you see they did accept it eventually as canonical.) for awhile.

Are the Right Books in the New Testament? by Don Stewart

This book will examine in detail the question of the New Testament canon of Scripture. Among other things, we will look at the different sources of authority for the first Christians. We will find out where they believed ultimate authority resided.

We will also consider the various books that are presently part of the New Testament and look at the reasons for their inclusion in the canon.

It is also necessary to have an overview of the historical process that led to their recognition by God’s people. We will discover why these books were received as authoritative by the church, and why other books were not.

Through all of this, we will find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that our present canon of Scripture is made up of exactly the right number of books that God gave to humanity with nothing added and nothing deleted.

What Were the Various Sources of Authority for the First Christians? by Don Stewart

Does the New Testament Ever Quote Itself as Authoritative Scripture? by Don Stewart

Does Each Book of the New Testament Claim to Be the Authoritative Word of God? by Don Stewart

What Happened after the Apostolic Era That Brought about the Need for a New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

What Happened Historically to Cause the Twenty-Seven Books of the New Testament to Be Recognized as Scripture? by Don Stewart

Why Did It Take Three Hundred Years for the First New Testament List to Be Drawn Up? by Don Stewart

What Are Some of the Differences Between the Recognition of the Old Testament Canon and the Recognition of the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

What Important Factors Caused the Early Church to Recognize the Present New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

What Minimal Factors Should Be Expected of a Book That Is to Be Included in the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

What Do Early Bible Translations Tell Us about the Extent of the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

How Does Constantine’s Fifty Copies of Scripture Help Us Understand the Extent of the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

How Do the Earliest Complete Greek Manuscripts Help Us Understand the Extent of the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

Why Should the Present New Testament Books Be Accepted as Authoritative Writings? by Don Stewart

Why Was the Authority of Certain New Testament Books Questioned? (The Antilegomena) by Don Stewart

What Can We Conclude about the New Testament Canon? by Don Stewart

Question 17
What Can We Conclude about the NT Canon?
Since the NT completes the written revelation of God to the human race, it is important that we know which books belong in the NT canon. After looking at the evidence, there are a number of important conclusions that we can make with respect to the canon of the NT. They are as follows:

1. The Twenty-Seven Books Are the Only Divinely Inspired Writings
   From an historical point of view, it is clear that the present twenty-seven books of the NT are the only books that have been divinely inspired by God and recognized by the people of God. This is a fact of history. There is no doubting this. We have no examples of books that were first rejected by a large majority of the believers and then later included into the canon. Neither do we find any examples of books that were left out of the NT that have any claim to be placed within. The canon of Scripture is complete.
   
   
2. The Church Was Diligent in Investigating the Authority of the Books
   The issue of the canon of Scripture was something that believers took seriously. From the time the NT documents were first written, believers used discernment to recognize the divine from the human; the true from the false. For example, we find Paul himself giving a sign of authentication by affixing his signature to the end of his letters. It was important to them to know which books had God’s divine authority behind them.
   
   
3. There Was a Marvelous Unity among Believers
   We also find that there was a marvelous unity among those who believed in Jesus with respect to which books belonged in the NT. There was immediate agreement on most of the books; only a few were ever questioned. These particular books that caused some uncertainty were carefully examined and eventually recognized as Holy Scripture by all believers. We should not exaggerate the significance of the length of time it took to accept these books or the amount of disagreement among believers on this issue.
   
   
4. No Individual or Council Made the Final Determination
   As we have repeatedly emphasized, there was no council, organization, or individual who collected the various books and made an authoritative determination on which ones belonged and which did not. The recognition of the canon was a long and gradual process. It could not have been otherwise.
   
   These factors show that believers can have supreme confidence that the NT which we have today is the same NT that the Lord originally gave to the human race; no more and no less.
   

Summary - Question 17
What Can We Conclude about the NT Canon?

There are a number of concluding points that we can make about the NT canon of Scripture. First, the evidence is clear that the twenty-seven books that make up the NT have been recognized and used by the church from the beginning. They are the only written works that God has divinely inspired during this time in history.

We also note that the church realized the importance of publicly reading and studying the doctrine, or teaching, which derived from the Lord. Safeguards were taken to make certain that no false teaching was promoted.

There is also the fact that the believers, for the most part, were in agreement as to which books belonged and which did not. While some writings were received by a limited number of people in small geographical areas for a short period of time, eventually, they realized these works did not constitute Holy Scripture.

It cannot be stressed too strongly that the believers merely recognized the authority that was in these writings from the moment they were composed. Humans recognized God’s divine Word, but they did not authorize it or give it any special status. The divine status was already there.

We do not find any individual, church council, or organization providing the final word on this issue for it was God Himself who determined the NT canon. Consequently, we can be confident that we have today the exact extent of what He revealed to the human race with nothing added and nothing missing.

Is the New Testament reliable, accurate & historically correct?

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

Tertullian, writing in c. 180 CE, said, “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over [to] the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”

The longer quote in context (Chapter XXXVI.—The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles...):

"Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice & representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show."



Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (who died in the last year of the Diocletian persecution, 311 CE). In fragment 1, he speaks of the autograph of the Gospel of John as still existing in his day: “the copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which, by the divine grace, has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.”