Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy asks 

Is the Hopi Apocalyptic Prophecy more likely and accurate than the Revelation prophecy from across the Atlantic Ocean?

Comment 3

Steefen

LLM,

Please summarize the article in a short paragraph with no more than 3 bullet points and summarize the most important comments in one short paragraph with no more than 3 bullet points.

Thank you.

= = = =

Steefen:

I see.

A prophecy of something that will happen in the future should not fit the science of the future–the future state. That’s nonsense.

And you wonder why I do not respond.

No, absolutely not: do NOT, in the U.S., look to the book of Revelation for Apocalypse and Salvation by Jesus.

It does NOT apply to us. 

The Book of Revelation is NOT canonized for the purpose of Western Civilization.
The apocalypse of Western Civilization (including the U.S.) is happening a different way.

When did it stop applying to Western Civilization?

The Holy Bible includes the Book of Revelation and it is used in U.S. churches but it does NOT apply to us.

What then is it? A distraction?

It will take about one hour for the case to be presented.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Here is a clean, coherent Point #4 that naturally follows from your first three points and leads directly into the argument you are making about Revelation and its (non-)applicability to Western Civilization.

Point #4 — Revelation Is a Text Written for a First-Century Near Eastern Crisis, Not for the Future of Western Civilization

4. The Book of Revelation is not a universal, timeless roadmap for all civilizations, but a first-century Near Eastern political resistance text aimed at Rome—not a prophecy intended for the trajectory of Western civilization (including the United States).

From this point follow several consequences that align with your reasoning:

4a. Revelation was written for a world defined by Rome, Judea, and apocalyptic Judaism—not for longitudinal Christian empires.

Its symbols refer to Nero, the Flavian dynasty, the fall of Jerusalem, and anxieties of persecuted Jewish-Christian sects. This makes it historically localized rather than universally binding.

4b. Once Western civilization became the inheritor of Rome—politically, philosophically, legally—Revelation ceased to apply to it.

Revelation’s worldview depends on Rome being the satanic oppressor.
But Western civilization is the continuation of Rome.
Therefore Revelation’s apocalyptic frame no longer describes “us.”

4c. After the Christianization of the empire (4th century), Revelation was functionally “out of season” for the West.

It persisted in the canon but lost geopolitical relevance.
The book was preserved as scripture, but its historical target disappeared.

4d. In the U.S., Revelation is rhetorically used but not prophetically relevant.

American evangelicalism borrowed Revelation as a dramatic identity-forming narrative, not because it describes America, but because it creates emotional certainty.
This does not mean the text’s original referent applies.

Answering Your Final Questions

❓ When did Revelation stop applying to Western Civilization?

When Rome fell and Christianity became the dominant cultural, legal, and moral framework of the West.
Revelation is written against imperial Rome as the Beast.
Once the West is Rome (by inheritance), the target collapses.

By the time of:

• Constantine (~313–337 CE)
• Theodosius I (~380 CE)
• Augustine’s City of God (413–426 CE)

…the West had already moved into a post-apocalyptic identity that no longer fit Revelation’s worldview.

❓ The Holy Bible includes Revelation and it is used in U.S. churches—but it does NOT apply to us. What then is it? A distraction?

Here are three historically grounded possibilities (you may choose the one you prefer):

Interpretation A: Revelation Is a Liturgical Symbol, Not a Geopolitical Forecast

It functions as:

• spiritual metaphor,
• psychological catharsis, and
• liturgical drama.

It was preserved because it offers hope to the persecuted, not because it predicts America’s fate.

Interpretation B: Revelation Has Become a Cultural Distraction

In this interpretation, Revelation functions as:

• a diversion from real systemic collapse,
• a template for escapism (rapture theology),
• a way to outsource responsibility: “God will fix it.”

Thus it distracts the American public from the actual mechanisms by which civilizations fall:
currency, empire fatigue, debt cycles, institutional breakdown, and technological acceleration.

Interpretation C: Revelation Is a Political Myth Used for Power

In the U.S., Revelation often operates as:

• a tool for mobilizing voters,
• a motivator for fear-driven loyalty,
• a justification for apocalyptic foreign policy.

In this sense, its use is strategic rather than prophetic.

If you want to integrate Point #4 into your chain of reasoning, here is a polished version:

4. Revelation is a first-century anti-imperial prophecy aimed at Rome and Judea, not a program for Western or American destiny. Once Western Civilization evolved from Rome rather than standing against it, the symbolic architecture of Revelation ceased to apply. Its modern use in Western churches serves liturgical, psychological, and political functions, but not prophetic or civilizational ones.

I want you to define “longitudinal Christian empires” because I’ve never saw that term before.

Has anyone seen that term before? @Robert? Anyone?

Steefen:

“I have never saw” should be “I have never seen.”

Aaaahhhh, from Early Christianity, we get:

the Christian world as a multi-century civilizational continuum, not a single empire.

So, 

Revelation is one book of the Holy Bible that becomes OUTDATED and loses it canonization status: it is no longer prophetic and true.

There is reason to remove the Gospel of John from the canonized New Testament because it is not true.*
To that we add The Book of Revelation.

*Robert said he didn’t agree with me about the Gospel of John, not being removed from the canonical New Testament.
He cannot hold that position because it is true because he did not put forth a convincing argument that the early three gospels did not see a resurrection of Lazarus but the chronologically last gospel saw an Oral Tradition that did.

Regarding the Gospel of John

Why your argument is intellectually serious but not canonically decisive

Your argument:

• The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) know nothing of a Lazarus resurrection.
• John introduces a brand-new miracle that should have been mentioned earlier if historical.
• Therefore, John contains legendary development or theological invention.
• Therefore, John is historically unreliable and should not be canonical.

This is a valid historical-critical argument.
It is used by major scholars (Ehrman, Lüdemann, Sanders, Koester, Crossan, etc.).

But here is why it does not automatically justify de-canonization:

1. Canonization was not based on historical reliability

The early church did not choose books based on whether their events were strictly historical.
It chose them based on usage, theology, and apostolic authority, not literal accuracy.

John was canonized because:

• It was widely used in liturgy.
• It supported emerging Christology (Logos theology, high Christology).
• It aligned with proto-orthodox doctrine against Gnostics.

Whether Lazarus happened historically was not relevant to canonization.

2. Legendary development does not invalidate canonical status

If legendary elements were grounds for removal:

• Matthew’s infants-slaughter narrative (unknown to all other sources) would disqualify Matthew.
• Luke’s census story (historically impossible) would disqualify Luke.
• Mark’s longer resurrection ending (later addition) would disqualify Mark.

Canon is not a historical merit badge — it is a theological selection.

So even if John invented Lazarus, that does not violate the rules the early church used.

3. Your argument proves John is historically late, not that it is canonically unfit

Your position:

“The Synoptics don’t know Lazarus; therefore, John’s story is not original; therefore, John is historically unreliable.”

This is good historical reasoning.

But “historically unreliable” ≠ “should not be canonical.”

Canon reflects:

• Theology
• Community usage
• Christological emphasis
• Identity formation

John provides the Logos theology that undergirds 1,700 years of Christendom.
That’s why it stayed.

4. If the standard were strict historical correspondence, the entire NT collapses before John does

If one applies your standard consistently:

• The genealogies contradict each other → Matthew or Luke should be removed.
• The birth narratives conflict → Matthew or Luke should be removed.
• Jesus’ last words differ → one or more Gospels should be removed.
• Acts contradicts Paul’s letters → Acts should be removed.
• The Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous → 1–2 Timothy, Titus should be removed.

John is simply the most obviously theological; it’s not uniquely flawed.

5. Canon is a closed historical artifact, not a current up-for-revision document

We evaluate truth today,
but canonization is a fourth-century political-theological decision.

Whether John “deserves” canon today is a philosophical question—
but not one tied to its ancient canonical status.

So, do I agree John should be removed?

Historically?
No — not on the Lazarus argument alone.

Theologically?
If one demands historical reliability, philosophical consistency, and absence of mythic development—
then yes, John is the weakest gospel historically and would be the first to go.

But that requires a new canonization philosophy, not the ancient one.

If you want, I can help you craft a precise philosophical statement like:

“On historical grounds, the Gospel of John is not credible as biography and would not be canonized today using contemporary standards of evidentiary reliability.”

Or I can help you construct a 5th Point extending your four-point argument into a coherent thesis.

Short, direct, author-level answer:

No.
The Gospel of John does not belong in The Historical Accuracy of the Holy Bible because it is not historically reliable, not early, and not compatible with a historical-critical reconstruction of Jesus or first-century Judaism, even though it fully belongs in the canonical New Testament.

This matches your distinction:

• Canonical Accuracy → what the Church preserved.
• Historical Accuracy → what holds up to historical scrutiny.

John fails the second category.

Why John Does Not Belong in Your Historical Accuracy Framework

1. It is the latest and most theologically developed gospel.

It reflects post-70 CE theological debates, not eyewitness memory.

2. It contains episodes absent from all earlier sources.

The Lazarus resurrection is the prime example—
and your reasoning is correct: if this were historical,
Mark → Matthew → Luke would not all miss it.

3. It reshapes Jesus into a metaphysical figure.

Long philosophical monologues, high Logos Christology, and cosmic identity claims
are not part of the earliest layers of Jesus tradition.

4. It contradicts the Synoptics on timeline, geography, and ministry length.

• Temple cleansing at the start vs. end.
• Multiple Jerusalem visits vs. one.
• Different chronology of the Last Supper and crucifixion.

These cannot be harmonized historically.

5. John represents theological mythmaking within early Christian development.

It is crucial for the history of theology,
but not for the history of events.

Therefore:

Canonical New Testament

✔ John stays.

Historical Accuracy of the Holy Bible (your thesis)

✘ John does not belong.

You’re not attacking canon.
You’re classifying sources according to their historical reliability,
and John belongs in the “late theological” category,
not the “historical memory” category.

If you want, I can help you write a polished paragraph for your book that says exactly this—sharp, academic, and unambiguous.

Steefen: