***St. John’s Gospel is a new development in Christian understanding of Christ as fully divine as well as fully human.***
Let me see if I understand the “logic” here. John is a direct witness to the events. He later writes about the events and claims that Jesus was crucified for claiming equality with God. Yet, it wasn’t until many years later that anyone would think that Christ was God even though that was what he was crucified for, claiming to be God.
Now I’m sure we can expect you to respond with some atheistic Bible criticism claiming that was not the case.
That's curious. Where does John say that? His Gospel is the only one that doesn't mention anything about Jesus being asked if He is the Son of God. The previous three Gospels do, and only one (Mark 14:62) "quotes" Jesus as saying "Yes I am." The other two "quote" Him as saying "You said it" (Mat 26:64) and "You say that I am" (Luke (22:70).
Of these thour Matthew and John were witnesses. Their testimony does not match. For being such an important question, John, doesn't even mention it.
But "Son of God" in Judaism never meant "equivalent with God" as you claim. It was a title given to angels and kings. And messiah (mesiyah in Hebrew or christos in Greek, which means anointed) would certainly have that title, being a favorite of God, but "equivalent with God." Why would God pray to God? Why would God have Himself tempted?
Now I’m sure we can expect you to respond with some atheistic Bible criticism claiming that was not the case
To you, it seems, anything that doesn't agree with "official truth" is "atheist Bible criticism." Do you believe that bats are birds? The bible says they are. It must be true. It's in the bible.