Well, the word "inspired" can mean many things. Do you believe the Bible is perfect and inerrant? If you do, then you would have to say that fallible man could not have produced it without SIGNIFICANT direction. While not referring to quoting, it amazes me that there are so many cross-references to other scripture that the writer either could not or probably did not know about specifically. This can be no accident.
And yes, it is inarguable that the personalities of the writers do come through, as well as an intended audience for many of the books, although I would say that all the books are directed to believers generally. I would say this was God's specific intention. Especially when Christianity was first spreading, this would have been a highly efficient method to adopt. I would disagree with you that the style is not eternal, why does "eternal" have to mean impersonal? We have a personal God. The writers wrote in the style of men, but the content is "eternal" and could not have been manufactured (IMHO) by any group of men.
Much of the original Greek is difficult to comprehend even to the Greeks. Many aspects are left without explanation, such as Mary's "know not man". Fundamental theological truths, such as the Trinity, are left without a scriptural definition. The book of Acts ends with unresolved suspense. Clearly God wanted us to perceive the Gospels as a scripture rooted in its historical and personal context.
Yes, I agree, although I would maintain that the essential elements of faith are still understandable to a child. Once we get into the nitty-gritty, then there is an ocean to wade through. My speculation is that was totally by design. God made us as curious creatures who strive for knowledge and greater understanding. In all of literature, is there a greater laboratory for this than the Bible? :) I would say 'NO'. I think it is a part of sanctification to look for this knowledge, although, as Joe and I have recently discussed, this is by no means the only way sanctification happens or the only way we become more holy.
No one really needs to know anything about, say, Kant in order to understand Kantian philosophy. His books are completely self-sufficient, ahistorical, translate without much difficulty, if we were Kantians rather than Christians we would all subscribe to Sola Scriptura; it would be ridiculous not to.
Part of Sola Scriptura is acknowledging that the Bible does not give us everything there is to know. John is clear about that, as you mentioned. Sola Scriptura says, rather, that the Bible gives us everything we NEED to know in order to know Christ and live our lives as intended by God. Can you think of anything not found in the Bible that we truly NEED to do either of these things?
They were using the quotes from Christ, as their source, so it is not surprising that they said the same thing. In te Apostolic community, the phraseology was repeated. +Paul's teaching, which preceeds the Gospels, is decidely different and, as far as I know, makes no direct reference to any of the Gospels, as well as Gospels (coming afater +Paul) seem to be oblivious to his Epistles.
Sola Scriptura says, rather, that the Bible gives us everything we NEED to know in order to know Christ and live our lives as intended by God
Where does it say in the NT that "sola scriptura" is all you need?
That I don't disagree with. The point remains that the Scripture is given us in its historical and linguistic context, and therefore is nearly incomprehensible without some exegetical tradition. The choice is, whose tradition, that of failed priests Luther and Calvin or that of the fathers of the Church throughout centuries.