Revelation was only doubted because of content, with it's talk on resurrection and armageddon very much at odds with you die and goto heaven or hell doctrine of the later trinitarians.
First of all, what does trinitarian theology have to do with "heaven or hell" eschatology? Second, it was doubted on account of its chiliast eschatology, which is unique in the Bible and which reflects a rather sectarian view popular in Asia Minor (as it is found also in the writings of Papias of Hierapolis, in Irenaeus, in the Epistula Apostolorum, in the views attributed to Cerinthus, in later Phrygian Montanism, etc.), which may indeed reflect pagan Zoroastrian influence (in fact, there are striking parallels between Revelation and the Zoroastrian Oracles of Hystaspes). It was also doubted on account of the very different eschatology, theology, and language of the gospel of John (Revelation was written in rather poor Greek), such that both could not have been written by the same person (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria).
Third, the personal eschatology of Revelation is much closer to the simplified "heaven or hell" modern doctrine than you realize. The apocalyptic view usually encountered in the NT and in early Jewish and Christian writings is that one goes to a place of rest immediately at death (often heaven, as in Josephus and Paul) where one awaits resurrection, and then in the resurrection the person is judged (on Judgment Day) on account of the works done prior to death, with the righteous being given eternal life and the wicked being given eternal punishment (not as a disembodied soul but as a resurrected person) in a fiery Gehenna. This is quite representative of the eschatology of Revelation; the "souls" (the only place in the NT where psukhé is used to refer to the part of a person that survives death) of dead martyrs await their resurrection in heaven and then when the resurrection occurs, eternal torture is given to those who are judged wicked. The modern "heaven or hell" view results from taking resurrection out of the picture, with judgment occurring individually at death instead of in a future time. This represents the shift in later Christianity away from apocalypticism towards realized eschatologies (such as amillenialism), which represents a response to millennial movements that would spring up every now and then predicting an "end of the world" and the time of Judgment Day.
Try enoch and it's obsession with Angels sex lifes and maybe you will see how far removed they are from the actual books we do use in the bible.
Is it really? It is not "obsessed" with the sex lives of angels; the book is much more interested in divine judgment on their actions. The main thing it adds to Genesis 6 (which is where the idea of angels mating with humans came from) is that it was unnatural and perverted for the angels to do this, that this involved an abandonment of their nature and heavenly abode to come to earth to marry women. This theme is taken up in the NT, particularly in Jude 6-7 which is directly dependent on 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch is also quoted verbatim in Jude 14-15 as inspired "prophecy" and signs of its influence are found all over the place in the NT. Revelation, for instance, contains many ideas and motifs that appeared for the first time in 1 Enoch and which are not found at all in the OT.
