Should the Catholic Church apologise for including the Book of Revelation in the New Testament??

Question

At the council of Nicea in 325AD over 300 Catholic church leaders voted which gospels and missives would be canonized into Holy Scripture for the New Testament.The first vote was to exclude Revelation,not only because it contradicted Christ's teaching that the Kingdom of God would never come with signs (Luke 17:20,21)--but also the author was unknown-It was in a different language to the Gospel of John--& an obviously different writing style to John's Gospel--and transformed Christ from the Prince of Peace into a raving avenger.After the 2nd vote(and some skulduggery)--it scrapped in--This book has been responsible for suicidal doomsday cults-and perverted the Gospel Story.Perhaps it's time for the Catholic Church to admit their mistake!

Answer 1

The Apocrypha of Peter was way ahead of John's Revelation. The reason that was dumped was because it said everyone would eventually get out of Hell. They figured Revelation would keep people in line and in church.
Revelation has caused nothing but woe on humanity. It's spawned dozens of suicide cults (there's one right now on its way in Russia), finger pointing at Antichrists, and wars people aren't afraid to fight because the book says their side will win.

Answer 2

Well, first let's remember that it was not at the Council of Nicea - you're watching too many movies. The NT was indeed put together by the RCC, but it was over several councils including Antioch and Rome, but not Nicea.

Second, the reason the cults are spawned and people do not understand the Revelation is because they have turned away from the teaching authority of the Church. The Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). Since the Church determined (under such guidance) that the Revelation should be included, wouldn't it make sense that the Church would be the authority on how to interpret its meaning? Yes, it would make sense.

Revelation was written by a person named John who may or may not be the Apostle. It was written during a time when Christians were persecuted. It was written in a coded language so that Christians could understand it without "the authorities" catching on. It's symbolism captures inspired sacred messages, but it is not intended to be taken literally.

So, no, the Church has no need to apologize. Folks who misinterpret the meaning of Revelation and spread false teaching do. 1 Timothy 4:2

Answer 3

No. But maybe they should apologize for everything they left out!

From my limited understanding there are many writings about the time of Christ, and the way the passages of the bible got chosen was by vote. Politics. We take this, but not that .... How can people "know the truth" when they were never given a chance to even see all of it, or even know that it exists.

But, really, it just shows that the basic desire of human are just the same as they ever were.

Answer 4

I am guessing that you are one of the many that do not understand the book of Revelation.

I suggest that you go get a copy of an Amish Holy Bible because they're bible doesn't include it.

The Bible is incomplete without Revelation. The Revelation of CHRIST is what the whole Bible is about.

If included, the 2nd to last verse in the bible reads.

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Rev 22:20

You can't end the Holy Word of God and better than that!

Answer 5

Sorry, sir. You are WRONG! No mistake has been made in leaving it in. God controls His Word, and the hearts of men!

Jesus also said "the Kingdom of God is at hand."
Jesus is the Kingdom of God, and He came to Earth without observation. He came in obscurity, and without fanfare. He made no reputation of Himself.

But His Second Coming will be different! All the world will be able to observe His arrival described in Revelation 19! Matthew 24. Luke 21, these passages and many others describe very observable events!

The Rabbi's of old once taught that there were two Messiahs: one a suffering servant, and the other an avenging judge.
Jesus' first advent was as the suffering servant. His Second Advent will indeed be as the avenging God to purge the world of sin and unrighteousness, and to restore it to His original design.

Answer 6

No, because it's the Devil who wants that book out of the Bible. He hates it when Christians read passages like these and are not afraid of him.

Revelation 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Your argument is based upon the supposition that the eternal God of Heaven either doesn't have the power or doesn't have the interest to keep a book that is not of divine origin out of the cannon of Scripture. If that's your belief then why stop at the book of Revelation?

Answer 7

Unknown author? The apostle John, while in exile on the aisle of Patmos, received the Revelation from Christ. There is no contradiction other than from those who don't know better than to assume things like this question, for instance.

Answer 8

They should aplogize, but then where does that leave the Protestants -- they totally accept the Council of Nicea, they have no alternative...

Answer 9

God is in control now as He was then. Everything He wanted in there is in there for a reason. What was left out, was left out for a reason. I think you need to go back and read Luke again. Try different versions. Read King James version and others. There will be signs and mankind will know the season.

Answer 10

I think they should start off by apologizing for the:
Crusades, The Inquisition, Burning heretics at the stake, tampering with and concealing historical documents, insulating pedophiles by transferring "The Accused" to different parishes.

Adding a fictitious book to an already fictitious story does add insult to injury. But its far, far, far, far, far down the list of things they should apologize for.