Because, maybe, in the back of your mind, you know that it is significant although not desirable in your preconceived picture of the development of Christianity?
I'm honestly not sure what that means. My complaint is that, for example, you appear to be saying that since John was written in 90 A.D. no one knew anything in John until that time. HOWEVER, at the same time your Church (I think) maintains that all truth was orally transmitted until the Canonization of scripture, for which your Church takes full credit. These both cannot be true (if either if them is). My contention is that the conversations appearing in John were "basically" orally and correctly taught leading up to the actual drafting of the text. If that happened, then it's no wonder that the Book of John was rubber-stamped by the Council. Therefore, the conversations in John were already known to the people before John was written.
FK: "From your above, it sounds like you are saying that Christians didn't believe that Christ was God until John was written 60 or 70 years after the fact. Is that right?"
We can only speculate what was taught orally. And we can hope that what was taught orally is the same thing that was written down later on, beginning after 70 AD (destruction of Jerusalem's Temple).
Well, then when did your Church assume the mantle of being the one and only true Church that was infallible in its holdings? When did "always and everywhere believed" begin?
It is rather obvious that Christians, in time, did come to believe that Christ is God (they sure didn't in Acts 1!), and that Son of God in His case was not just a title reserved for the angles and kings (as in Judaism) but literally means God's only begotten Son, God of God, True Light of True Light, of one essence as the Father, as the Creed was was later formulated, just as they, in time, came to believe that the Holy Spirit is not just the "power of God" (Judaic meaning), but actually God Himself, co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father and the Son.
You are describing a progression of Christian faith here that is all over the place, especially if you see John as incompatible with the other Gospels. Assuming that it was your men, and your men alone who brought order to all this, when did that happen, and how?
Speculating what went on beofre the books were written is just that speculation. Truth is, we don't know what was said before the books of the Gospels were written. But we do know that various Christian groups represneted a heterodox community of believers.
at the same time your Church (I think) maintains that all truth was orally transmitted until the Canonization of scripture, for which your Church takes full credit
The Church only takes credit for recongizing and selecting that which was inspired, and rejecting that which was profane.
My contention is that the conversations appearing in John were "basically" orally and correctly taught leading up to the actual drafting of the text
That means +John's Greek was flawless (actually better than +Paul's) from the getgo and his theoogy fully developed. If that's what he was teaching from the beginning, then it is surely strange the Synaptic Gospels don't mention any of it.
Well, then when did your Church assume the mantle of being the one and only true Church that was infallible in its holdings? When did "always and everywhere believed" begin?
The Church existed from the Pentecost. The Church consisted of those who held the orthodox faith. The Church is the one that, when tested, formulated correct theology (Trinity), and Christology (two natures, one Person) based on what the Church believed "everywhere and always" but was not necessarily expressed.
The other alternative is that all other "churches" were equally "true," and all Gnostic, Docetist, Monophysite, Montanist, Marcionist, Ebionite, etc. theologies were equally "true"."
I hope you realize the situation hasn't changed a single bit to this day.
You are describing a progression of Christian faith here that is all over the place, especially if you see John as incompatible with the other Gospels. Assuming that it was your men, and your men alone who brought order to all this, when did that happen, and how?
It's not incompatible with other Gospels. The ealrier Gospels describe a human Christ; +John's Gospel describes a divine One. THey are both correct, but the idea that Christ is two natires in one Person was not necessarily believed by all Chritisians, or all bishops.
When the issues of Christological nature began to appear, there was many a hierarch who had strayed, creating distorted and misleading "Christ," one with only divine nature, or one who was "adopted" by God.
Kosta: Speculating what went on beofre the books were written is just that speculation. Truth is, we don't know what was said before the books of the Gospels were written. But we do know that various Christian groups represneted a heterodox community of believers.
The Church only takes credit for recongizing and selecting that which was inspired, and rejecting that which was profane.
Well now, what have we learned? Of course we have learned that we must not accept a priori that anything in Scripture is correct, i.e. we must not accept the divinity of Scripture as a principle known outside of sense experience. Curiously, however, what seems to be implicitly stated is that the [Greek] Church is the a priori principle, that is, we must accept the proclomations of the [Greek] Church outside of experience. Of course, Kosta may have all kinds of data proving the infallibility of the [Greek] Church, since he would obviously reject any rationalist principle that the [Greek] Church grounds all truth, and has yet to prove it. Or, perhaps, Kosta is a subjectivist and the [Greek] Church is just one form of truth amongst an infinite number of truths, as all empiricists end up being subjectivists.
One final possiblity exists, it could be that Kosta is actually a mind in a vat being manipulated by an evil scientist and what he thinks is sense-experience is all an illusion. That'll be a tough one to prove false.