Canon is closed, but revelation has never stopped

Why is Canon closed?

I'm not part of any denomination, nor catholic. I'm eastern orthodox

But I'd imagine catholics teach it too

And the type of Revelation I refer to is literal communication from God. Not inspiration.

Yes

Mary, Saints, Angels, etc.

Nothing like this happens without God

There is no rogue saint or angel that appears without God lol

And what have these angels and saints taught exactly? What has been revealed to then that hasn't been before?

Prayers

Sometimes teachings

Usually revelation is accompanied with either prophecy or direction for correcting false doctrine.

At least if we use the Bible as an example.

There's some pretty wild things that have happened in the past 2000 years that we hear about, it has never really stopped

Yeah I could say the same about Pagan rituals too.

For sure

Or Hinduism, or any other sect

Absolutely

Why though are those amazing things not put into scripture?

Why is Canon closed?

I don't like assuming things are just the work of demons, we generally don't make assumptions like that. Trying to stay humble about the world

What does humility about the world mean? But still I'm wondering, why is canon closed? Why are the revelations you say are occurring not being put into scripture like any other pre NT time period?

Because calling people possessed isn't very nice lol

And they're pretty small scale revelations. It was a task of itself to put all of the necessary things into the bible that are there to begin with. Something isn't just simply added because it's part of the faith. Even the book of revelation took a while to be added

That doesn't explain why it's closed. Closed means there won't be anything new, not that there hasn't been.

Arguably a new prophet is more necessary now than it's ever been to reign in Christianity's fractured teachings.

Mainly because the Church decides what's authentic or not, what necessarily belongs and what doesn't necessarily belong. In general, it just wouldn't be suitable (or appropriate) to say those things are the same as the inspired Word of God. We also don't put things up against one another as if it were a contest, this is western/debatey dialectics. There's nothing wrong at all with having things like this outside the bible to complement (but not replace, nor override) the bible

And maybe, if we ourselves are asserting the objective authority that such a thing were necessary

So then you would agree then that the authority over the Bible's canon is determined by the church authorities, and not by God himself? Unless you believe that God literally speaks and directs the church authorities, which we've already determined isn't in a fashion anywhere near direct enough to say "these books are canon, these books are not."

If the church decides certain scriptures are unauthentic then there is something wrong with scriptures not in the canon. Essentially it's declaring them false and that they should be avoided as scripture.

The (Eastern) Church isn't too interested in going around saying what's false or what isn't. Things we know is authentic are taught. That's all

If someone brings a foreign idea up, we can see whether or not that idea is really justified enough to be taught. If it isn't, it's just not accepted

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22:18-19‬ ‭ESV‬‬ https://www.bible.com/bible/59/rev.22.18-19.esv

Scripture is complete.

*according to scripture*

@Salacious Swanky Cat A similar warning appears in Deuteronomy. Plus Revelation was written before the four Gospels. That warning applies only to the book of Revelation itself. Unless of course you believe the four Gospels are heretical.

Revelations quotes the gospels so no.

Revelation was written after the gospels

Wikipedia on the book of Revelation "The bulk of traditional sources date the book to the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (AD 81–96), and the evidence tends to confirm this.[4]"

For the gospels: The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—were probably written between AD 66 and 110,[2][3] 

So yeah, I was wrong, it's John that's believed to be written after. https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html

Either way, revelation isn't the last book in the Bible chronologically, so my point still stands. Revelation does not say you can't have any more scripture. By that logic all scriptures after Deuteronomy are invalid. It's much more reasonable to assume John was writing about the book of Revelation itself, not the Bible as a whole as the Bible didn't technically exist at the time of it's writing.

That list dates Revelation to AD 68. You just quoted Wikipedia that it's after (81-96).

It's generally thought that Revelation was written shortly after John wrote his gospel, which would make it the last book chronologically. Putting that logic aside I'm willing to grant that John referred only to Revelation itself. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Canon is still open.