Orthodox has asked an interesting question:
It would be instructive to see you debate with someone from one of the churches that does not accept Revelation as scripture.
Just as it would be to see you do the same.
Here's how it could go down. O = Orthodox, X = some other 'ancient branch of Christianity' like a Copt.
O: Revelation is in the Canon... I think.
X: You think? You don't know for sure?
O: Well, it's traditionally held-to as canonical, but our canon is open.
X: So you can't be sure.
O: I can - the Church believes it to be canonical.
X: No, your church is not the true church. Mine is.
O: No, mine is. We have a history.
X: So do we.
O: We go back to the apostles.
X: So do we.
O: No you don't. here's my list.
X: Here's mine.
O: that's not Sacred Tradition.
X: Yes it is. My Church says it is and says your list is not.
O: Well, my Church says your list is not Tradition, even though it's tradition, and my list is Tradition.
X: How do you know it's Sacred Tradition?
O: My church says so and it's been traditionally held to.
X: But your church is the wrong one and so your claims to tradition are invalid.
O: But my church says it is and YOURS is wrong.
X: But your church isn't the true church. So your Tradition is just tradition, whereas my tradition is Tradition.
You'd put forward your arguments, they'd put forward their arguments, and then you'd be at an impasse.
My position doesn't depend on whether others accept the rightness of the arguments, but on the arguments themselves.
Speaking of impasse, BTW, look where you are.