Yes.
More evidence of your view of the relationship between the two, and which is superior
No, it's a hstorical fact.
I think that the Gospels were mainly targeted to different audiences, although still applicable to all. I also think that the personalities of the scribes did come through in the writings
I think you think too much. If God "wrote" the Bible, how could their personalities come through unless they added a little of their own "zest" to the text?
That said, I firmly believe that the actual words of the scripture are from God...
And the scribes' personalities somehow "snuck" in?
For your side, truth comes from Tradition, and is maintained by agreement in the hierarchy
No, luckily, the Church had to deal with heretics from the get-go until the present-day and in their wisdom the Apostles and the fathers after them wrote everything the Church did and believed. These writings tell us what the church did and believed from the beginning. Comparing what we know and what we believe today we can see if we have maintained the Holy Tradition handed down by the Apostles in person. If what St. Ignatius, a disciple of Apostle Peter, we are confident that his writings reflect the knowledge of the Church and St. Peter himself, for otherwise I doubt he would have made him a bishop and patriarch of Antioch and his spiritual successor.
For my side, truth comes from God, and is maintained by God
Hey, the Muslims say their Koran comes from God directly, word by word. We are offering the writings of the people who were in the Church when the Church was born, when the Apostles still walked around; and you are telling me that your knowledge comes from how you interpret the word of God. So, you put yourself in the position of being the correct interpreter of the word of God!? And there are 33,000 zillion Protestants out there each claiming the same authoritative "authority." Please be real. You are denying historical facts and placing your own interpretations as coming from God, while diminishing the beliefs of the people who were the disciples of the Apostles that we use as our measuring stick.
may I ask on what basis you decide whether a Biblical story is literal?
Truly, I don't even concern myself with the historicity of scientific accuracy of the Bible. I will bring it up as a means of challenging those who claim that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, but to me biblical veracity is in its message.
Yes.
Well, since then I've learned that you think of the scripture as part of Tradition. I see your view as being that if there were 10,000 stories to tell, the authors of the NT just decided to write some of them down, leave others out, and it didn't really matter because it would all be picked back up again through the Church. The scriptures are fine, as a supplement, but Tradition is really where the truth rests. After all, it was first. If anyone ever thinks that the scripture does not match Tradition, then in every single case it is the person misinterpreting scripture, not misinterpreting Tradition.
If God "wrote" the Bible, how could their personalities come through unless they added a little of their own "zest" to the text? ... the scribes' personalities somehow "snuck" in?
Their personalities didn't come through because of them, but because God wanted it that way. There was no sneakery involved. It was all God's will. There could be a dozen reasons for this. Just speculating, one could have been to authenticate the letters from the Biblical writer. Paul visited places and then wrote letters. If they didn't sound anything like him, then that would not have been productive.
A similar idea could have worked for the Gospel authors, the people heard the oral teaching first and then read the written word. If they did not match both in content and in style, then that would have been a red flag for new believers. In any event, I am merely observing what appears to be patently true in terms of the fact that personalities came through. I do not claim to declare the reason for it with certainty.
If what St. Ignatius, a disciple of Apostle Peter, we are confident that his writings reflect the knowledge of the Church and St. Peter himself, for otherwise I doubt he would have made him a bishop and patriarch of Antioch and his spiritual successor.
I honestly am not sure what the missing words are, but I think my answer would be that you have thrown out many teachings of the early Fathers, most notably, Augustine. (Wikipedia even says that Tertullian questioned that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I don't quote that source as gospel. :) How do you know which of the works of these heralded Saints is true and which is bogus. My understanding is that other fallible men get together and have a vote on it. Those fallible men decide what God meant, and you are bound by it. Your confidence is based on fallible men.
So, you put yourself in the position of being the correct interpreter of the word of God!?
No, not in a million years. It only looks that way to you because I differ from the Church. So, when I see a verse that says "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith ...", and I interpret it to mean that we are saved by grace through faith, you would say that I am coming up with my own private (crazy) interpretation, because the Church strongly disagrees with this.