I am comfortable making the assumption that the Holy Spirit conveyed exactly what the Lord wanted conveyed in the Bible. After all, there isn't much point in writing a book and leaving out the important parts of the story.
To believe that God deliberately only told us part of the story so that we, 2000 years later, would be reliant on the traditions of men--while simultaneously criticing the same in the Pharisees-- is less respectful toward the Spirit than I care to be.
I am comfortable making the assumption that the Holy Spirit conveyed exactly what the Lord wanted conveyed in the Bible. . . .
_______________________________________________________________
God did not write a Bible.
A bible is not really just a book but a compilation of books.
A committee of men simply compiled books they thought God had written through inspiration to His prophets. Men chose and compiled the Holy Bible from those books they then had and made a Bible.
A book that is a compilation of Holy books is no less holy than the individual books, just pointing out that there is much that could have been lost. The Apocrypha for instance, are they holy? If they are why do Protestants not have them in their Bible? If the same group that compiled the Holy Bible that Protestants use compiled the Apocrypha why is it now not accepted? What committee is it now that is better inspired than the original committee?
And you speak wisdom in your words. When people use that John 21 reference, they usually don't include this from John 20:
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
John is clearly using the same method of recording as did Luke. It is called telescoping. Meaning, the important truth, facts, events were recorded "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." If John failed to record one jot or tittle less then we would conclude he left out most imporant information on salvation. He did not and he states so. So John is telling us there were probably more miracles, more sermons, more interaction BUT to record them would be repeating what he already established in his Gospel. Plus we have evidence he is telling us the truth. The synoptic gospels tell of more miracles and sermons and interactions.
That was well put. To think that God would allow the transmission of His will and words to the word of mouth transmission of fallible men is unthinkable.
You are right, nobody can agree on much of what we do have so it would be a waste of time to have any more.