This is exactly the problem I’ve been highlighting. 1:1 can be translated, " The revelation from Jesus Christ…" The immediate context favors this, "…which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place."
IOW, the contents of the book are primarily an unveiling/apocalypsis of what was to soon take place as it related to the recipients of the letter. This is done in the context of the wider, cosmic reality of the Lamb on the throne, the worship of heaven, and the coming judgements on idolatry, injustice, and unfaithfulness, and the powers behind such.
While the gospels can inform this, Revelation is not primarily an exposition of the Jesus of the gospels, or generically of his love, as is often said. That is not what the immediate context is saying. If one wants to bring that in after understanding the letter’s main objective and context, that is fine. But, it is not the first way to understand it. The immediate and internal context is.
Another issue is that Jesus says that Revelation is about what was soon to take place. That opens up another can of worms in which those who tout historicism use all kinds of gymnastics to explain away. What do we think soon meant to the original audience? How are we at liberty to change such meaning?