Is the Bible inspired by God?

Hi, Bill. I was intrigued by your use of "every Scripture." The idea that Paul or anyone else considers every writing inspired of God seems a bit much, and I was shocked you or anyone else would suggest it. However, I felt better when you said "even he must have had his limits." Well, if anything written is literature, then this is easy, as he told the Thessalonians (2 Thess 2:2) not to be misled by letters that seemed to be from him.I assume you'd agree, too, that any literature produced by those persons pushing circumcision would have been rejected by him as well. Correct? After all, he said he wouldn't put up with such teachings even for an hour.Oh, and to add to your list, the "sawn in half" guy of Hebrews 11 was Isaiah, from "The Martyrdom of Isaiah." 2 Tim 3:8's Jannes and Jambres are from a writing called "Jannes and Jambres," no longer extant. (I realize the pastoral epistles are classified as doubtful, as far as Pauline authorship, but so is Hebrews, and you used that.)And, while it's not Paul, Jude not only quotes First Enoch, but he references his quote and assigns authorship to the original Enoch. To this day, the Book of Enoch is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox church. Strangely enough, no fundamentalist I know agrees with Jude that Enoch wrote it, nor that the Book of Enoch is worth quoting or reading, and yet they consider Jude the Word of God. Odd.I didn't know several of the sources you listed. Thanks.

Hi, Brian. Am I missing something in your description of Jesus' trial. Here's my thoughts. I understood that there were many witnesses, and they contradicted themselves. I found Matthew 26:60-62 real quick, which said that, then said they finally got two to agree that Jesus had said he could destroy the temple and raise it up in three days. If Jesus was the problem that the Gospels said he was, then why would these rules stop powerful leaders from taking care of the problem? Maybe they couldn't meet during the holy week, but the holy week was also important enough to urge them to action of it was being thoroughly disrupted. And it seems to me that hundreds of people paving the streets with palm branches and declaring Jesus Messiah is a pretty serious disruption requiring pretty serious action.I don't think rules about when not to meet would stop the Sanhedrin or any other leaders from taking care of such a problem. This seems to carry more weight. I've always wondered, though, why anyone would make up something like that. It seems awful unlikely to me that the whole story is made up; i.e., that Jesus is a completely fictional character, so why add something like the Barabbas story? What's to be gained? Surely calling for Jesus' crucifixion would have sufficiently shown that the Jews rejected him, if that was the purpose. Adding Barabbas hardly makes them to have rejected him more.For example, Luke mentions the Barabbas story, but in Acts, on the day of Pentecost, he doesn't have Peter bringing up Barabbas at all. He just accuses the crowd of crucifying Jesus (Acts 2:23), without having to bring up Barabbas.So, I understand it's strange we have no record of releasing a prisoner at Passover, but why would someone make that up? Isn't it just as likely that it was done only a few years, that it happened in a small, relatively insignificant land, and no one mentioned it? Do the writings of the Jews discuss crucifixion and prisoners under Roman rule so much that it should be discussed in their writings even if it only happened a few years?

It's always interesting to me how times change.I read a debate between a Christian and a Roman polytheist that was written way back in AD 230, when the church couldn't have been more "literalist." It was before there was such a thing as a "Roman" Catholic church.In the debate the Roman points out that the Christians are known for their poverty. Why should anyone follow a God, says the Roman, who takes such poor care of his followers? Octavius, the Christian, replies that for a traveler a light load is preferable to a large one.I think Celsus argues the same way in his 2nd century attack on Christianity. I'd have to check that out, but the general view of very early Christians is that they were prone to poverty.I would also add that you've been mentioning Finland, Buzsaw, but on the list earlier in the thread, Denmark was right behind them. I've not been to Finland, but I did live in Germany for nine years, and Denmark is the Las Vegas of Europe. You go there to get quick weddings and quick divorces, and Copenhagen is where you go for a good time.I think social programs keep the gap between the rich and poor smaller in Europe. Swedes were taxed at over 50% of their income, last I heard. I don't know what a better standard of living means. You don't live in the country in a falling down home with a car with no wheels out front in Germany, because it's not allowed. On the other hand, the Germans I knew didn't seem to live any better than the Americans I knew. It'd be awful hard, in my opinion, to define that better or worse standard of living.My experience is that Germans were very anti-fundamentalist overall. The exceptions are rare, and they live every bit as well as Americans. And if Christianity has become a myth to be scoffed at anywhere, it is in France, and I doubt that France's standard of living is any worse than the rest of Europe.