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.
If it is possible that what the Apostles wrote later was not consistent with what they preached before, then the Apostles cannot be trusted. Apostolic succession would fall apart for that reason alone.
FK: "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 theology 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 it is also surely strange that none of the whole Bible speaks anything of Mary being sinless. :) The quality of John's Greek doesn't bother me since I have a very different view of God's involvement in the creation of the scriptures. I'm sure John's theology grew, as it does with all of us, but I maintain that his original oral teachings were consistent with his later writings.
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"."
That's not the only alternative. Your Church could have been wrong on several things, as well as other churches. Perhaps the Church that was closest to being right was stamped out by a more powerful one. We cannot know for sure, but it does not follow that either your Church is 100% correct or all the others are equally correct. My church is closer to being correct than yours is, but that does not mean that mine is 100% right and yours is 100% wrong.