The Revelation of Peter

Originally posted by @fmf
Back when I was a Christian? I cannot recall. Would it have prolonged my faith or contributed to the loss of it? Don't know. Presumably the latter.

I think the fact that the writings attributed to Peter were proven to be forgeries and not included in the Bible should give us more confidence in the authenticity of the books that are in the Bible.

Originally posted by @divegeester
There was too much “apocalypse” in the bible already.

It's interesting that there were early Christians who were supposedly involved in producing "forgeries". Who was the "John" who wrote the Book of Revelation [that was included in the Bible] and why was the staunch and widespread opposition to its inclusion dismissed?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting that there were early Christians who were supposedly involved in producing "forgeries". Who was the "John" who wrote the Book of Revelation [that was included in the Bible] and why was the staunch and widespread opposition to its inclusion dismissed?

John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel of John and three letters, is the author of Revelation as far as I know. He was also the only Apostle who lived to an old age.

Originally posted by @fmf
Back when I was a Christian? I cannot recall. Would it have prolonged my faith or contributed to the loss of it? Don't know. Presumably the latter.

How would you like it if I used your own attitude for you for this thread?

You could just tell us why you find it significant that the Gospel of Peter or the Revelation of Peter is not in the canon of the New Testament.

why not just do so rather than treating your revealing [asking] of it in such a vain and self-regarding way?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting that there were early Christians who were supposedly involved in producing "forgeries". Who was the "John" who wrote the Book of Revelation [that was included in the Bible] and why was the staunch and widespread opposition to its inclusion dismissed?

Where did you get the idea that opposition to including Revelation in the Bible was “staunch and widespread?” This article says the opposite:

The story of the New Testament canon is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns. There are books that were accepted very quickly, almost from the start (e.g., the four gospels), and there are other books that struggled to find a home (e.g., 2 Peter).

And then there is the book of Revelation.
Few today would contest the claim that the book of Revelation stands as one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that its reception by the early church was equally complicated and controversial.

But, the story of the book of Revelation is not what one might expect. Other debated books tended to have a lukewarm reception at the earliest stages, only to gain more and more acceptance over time. Revelation, on the other hand, had nearly the opposite experience; it had a very early and positive reception in many parts of the church, only to run into serious challenges at a later point.

Lately, I have been doing a good bit of research on Revelation’s canonical history in preparation for writing an academic piece on the subject. Here are a few highlights about Revelation’s journey:

1. Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding. Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation. Our evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. That is an impressive list.

In addition, it is worth noting that almost every one of these church fathers accepted the book of Revelation on the same grounds, namely the belief that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee was the author.

B.W. Bacon was so impressed with Revelation’s initial reception that he was able to say, “There is no book in the entire New Testament whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, definiteness, and positiveness of statement” (The Making of the New Testament, 190).

2. Objections to Revelation were later and limited. Our first evidence of any real objection to the book of Revelation comes from the person of Gaius in the early third century who rejects the book on the grounds that it was a forgery of the heretic Cerinthus. Curiously, this is really the only specific objection were hear about from someone who rejected the book (most scholars agree that the so-called “Alogoi” mentioned later by Epiphanius is not a real group).

Dionysius of Alexandria, in the late third century, makes the argument that Revelation was written by another John besides the apostle. Eusebius appears to agree with him. But, it is worth noting that Dionysius does not reject the book on these grounds (despite the impression many give that he did), but still regards it as holy and inspired.

3. Objections to Revelation were Not Driven by Historical Matters. As we noted above, the main (and to some extent, the only) person who offered specific objections to Revelation in the early church was Gaius who believed it was a forgery of Cerinthus. But, what led him to this conclusion? It was not the historical merits of the book, but rather Gaius’ objection to chiliasm (the belief in a literal millennial reign of Christ).

Gaius opposed the chilastic teachings in the church, particularly the chiliasm he attributed to Cerinthus. There is little doubt that the reference to a millennium in Revelation 20 led Gaius to erroneously presume that Revelation was a product of Cerinthus’ pen.

4. Objections to Revelation Were Eventually Resolved. Even though Gaius is pretty much alone in his specific objections to Revelation, apparently it did have a negative affect in some quarters of the church. Particularly in the East, there was a resurgence of doubt about the book in the fourth century and later.

However, there were also many who supported the book. It was affirmed by the synods of Hippo (c.393) and Carthage (c.397). It was also received by Philastrius of Brescia (c.385), Rufinus of Aquileia (c.404), Jerome (c.414), and Augustine (c.426). And the reason why these groups accepted the book was simple: it was an ancient book quoted by the early church fathers as authoritative. And for this reason, eventually their view prevailed.

In the end, the problematic canonical journey of Revelation reminds us that the development of the NT canon was not always a smooth, pristine affair. However, it also remains that in the case of Revelation, the problems had little do with the historical merits of the book itself, but rather with the particular theological peccadillos of some in the early church. When the actual history of the book is understood, its canonical status stands in little doubt.

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/the-book-of-revelation-how-difficult-was-its-journey-into-the-canon/

Originally posted by @sonship
How would you like it if I used your own attitude for you for this thread?

You could just tell us why you find it significant that the Gospel of Peter or the Revelation of Peter is not in the canon of the New Testament.]

The question is about the process of including and rejecting books for the Bible, and is not at all comparable to you vainly withholding some unique "insight" you had - on the other thread - until someone said 'tell me' and so then you told them. Perhaps you can't see the difference.

Originally posted by @fmf
The question is about the process of including and rejecting books for the Bible, and is not at all comparable to you vainly withholding some unique "insight" you had - on the other thread - until someone said 'tell me' and so then you told them. Perhaps you can't see the difference.

<<The question is about the process of including and rejecting books for the Bible,...>>

Question: "How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?"

Answer: The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

Originally posted by @fmf
The question is about the process of including and rejecting books for the Bible, and is not at all comparable to you vainly withholding some unique "insight" you had - on the other thread - until someone said 'tell me' and so then you told them. Perhaps you can't see the difference.

Nope, no real difference.

You're just a bully. That's pretty much it.
You hold one standard to yourself and delight to try to bully other posters around.

Originally posted by @sonship
Nope, no real difference.

Of course there is a difference. Your question was holding back something and doing so in service of your vanity which openly talks about the self-defined and unilaterally declared "benefit" of your knowledge as you awaited somebody suitably sycophantic to come along and plead that you reveal what you were holding back. My question on this thread - and my demeanour - is utterly poles-apart different from yours.

Originally posted by @sonship
You're (FMF) just a bully. That's pretty much it.
You hold one standard to yourself and delight to try to bully other posters around.

This is nonsense and more adhominem sonship.

What happens here, a lot, is you and certain other Christians/spiritually orientated posters set themselves up as “teachers” here, you have admitted as much yourself that you want to teach here. You just cannot bear it when your vanity bubble get burst when your “teaching” is legitimately scrutinised.

That’s pretty much it. It is certainly not “bullying”.
You should be ashamed of yourself for saying so.

Originally posted by @sonship
You're just a bully. That's pretty much it.

Well, you've fired off at me - albeit in a water-off-a-ducks-back way that renders them impotent - just about the most vicious insults and accusations - that a Christian can possibly conceive of [something I know thanks to the fact I used to be one] - online bovver-boots self-sanctified stuff far in excess and far rawer and way more deeply personalized than anything I have ever said to you in any post in ten years or more. So that's pretty much me and that's pretty much you, I'd say.

Originally posted by @fmf
Who was the "John" who wrote the Book of Revelation [that was included in the Bible] and why was the staunch and widespread opposition to its inclusion dismissed?

As far as I know it is credited to John the disciple, the disciple whom “Jesus loved”, although I don’t know why he was specifically called out for being loved.

Originally posted by @divegeester
As far as I know it is credited to John the disciple, the disciple whom “Jesus loved”, although I don’t know why he was specifically called out for being loved.

Wikipedia offers this summary of what modern Bible scholarship has to say about it:

The author names himself as "John", but it is currently considered unlikely that the author of Revelation was also the author of the Gospel of John. Some of the evidence for this was set out as early as the second half of the 3rd century by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, who noted that the gospel and the epistles attributed to John, unlike Revelation, do not name their author, and that the Greek of the gospel is correct and elegant while that of Revelation is neither; some later scholars believe that the two books also have radical differences in theological perspective.

Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus. All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter. His precise identity remains unknown, and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as John of Patmos.

Originally posted by @fmf
Wikipedia offers this summary of what modern Bible scholarship has to say about it:

The author names himself as "John", but it is currently considered unlikely that the author of Revelation was also the author of the Gospel of John. Some of the evidence for this was set out as early as the second half of the 3rd century by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria ...[text shortened]... entity remains unknown, and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as John of Patmos.

The book certainly has a different feel than the rest of the NT. I expect some Christians here will have a counter argument to support the position that Revelation was written by John the disciple.

Originally posted by @divegeester
The book certainly has a different feel than the rest of the NT. I expect some Christians here will have a counter argument to support the position that Revelation was written by John the disciple.

Rather like Muhammad, John of Patmos supposedly had a supernatural "vision" and then wrote down an entirely uncorroborated account of it. In both cases, these accounts were adopted and became 'holy' scripture.