Question

I admit מראש that this is not really a question but a request.
In the fifth notebook, the goal was to persuade the reader of the reliability of Judaism, and it really is very persuasive. But the Judaism described there is very vague, whereas in practice it is so complex and complicated. Looking at the notebook could give the impression that Jewish customs / commandments / tradition are some sort of thing that was passed down from generation to generation without changes, from the revelation at Mount Sinai until today. In fact, the notebook only convinced me that it is reasonable to assume there was a revelation at Mount Sinai and that something was given there. Nothing beyond that. What I want to understand is what comes after that — namely, that nowadays this means the Oral Torah (and especially the Talmud). 
As much as I try, I cannot understand the logic of accepting the Talmud as a binding source in the way one accepts the Torah at Mount Sinai. The idea of public consensus is very vague to me. And even if we agree on what it means, why should it be treated as a legitimate consideration at all?
This issue is extremely confusing to me, and the only places where I found you addressing it were scattered here and there in responsa. But I feel (and I think other readers do too) that it needs a more detailed explanation, hence the title. Just as the notebook made the transition from belief in a philosophical God to belief in a theistic God who revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, perhaps there could be a notebook that explains how one gets from accepting that such a revelation indeed occurred to accepting the Jewish law of our own time. 
 
As you see fit, thank you.