Sola Scriptura is Sound

hi, I wish everyone here a happy and prosperous new year in advance. I am typing this from my phone, so i apologise in advance for not being able to type this well enough. Firstly, I want to draw your attention to the way pro has defined 'sola scriptura'.He claims that scripture has everything that is sufficient for the fullness of christian faith.However, the bible itself does not contain a list of which books are inspired and which books are not,something of vital importance to the christian faith.So if scripture does not contain something this vital, how can we say it alone is sufficient? Then, he goes on to say that Scripture alone is authoritative, but I have shown him many central christian docrrines such as the divinity of christ and doctrine of original sin required non biblical words for their defence, and were deemed correct even when others could come up with fully biblical arguments against them, as they were supported by tradition and had the support of the magisterium.So scripture alone fails there too. Also, Pro has failed to show a single verse from the bible to support his claim that scripture ALONE is sufficient.I have aleeady provided a satisfactory rebuttal to the lone verse that he claims gives support.This is really ironic as scripture alone is insufficient to even back his claim. He cherry-picks the writings of the early fathers and some parts of tradition, but convinently ignores others.He has regularly flip-flopped on whether tradition,oral teaching and apostles also have authority or not.Solo Scriptura is actually very bad latin, but it is a word used to distinguish a stricter version of this belief, that does not accept tradition and early bishops whenever convinent, but fully follows what it claims to be.Hence it is atleast more intellectually honest. The only sensible argument he makes comes from the fact that no teaching should every directly contradict the bible.I have shown how this is true of catholic faith as well, as every tradition and papal decree does not contradict the bible.But he is not willing to accept catholicism as sola scriptura. Thus, we can see that not only is sola scriptura logically unsound, it is also, scripturally unsound. I agree, that there can be a rich diversity of beliefs.There is a similar diversity of expression in the Catholic faith too, with over a hundered different orders,many hundereds of years old, each interpreting and serving God in their own way.However, it is also unwise to follow something that is this unsound both logically,historically and scripturally. The number 30,000 is a very consercative estimate.This proliferation of churches is the direct result of the belief that anyone and everyone is infallible.In contrast, while there are a number of distinct churches, even within the catholic church, (syro-malabar,maronite,melkite,coptic etc.).They are all geographical and traditional distinctions, the core beliefs are all the same,unlike protestantism.All accept the authority of the Pope.Even the orthodox church accepts the pope as the patriarch of the west and do not deny him the authority.Unlike many protestants who boldly even assert that others are not even christian. In the end, Christ alone is going to judge us, I am glad that you are willing to discuss your faith in an open forum, and are able to argue about it in a civil way.Even though we may have differences, I sincerely hope, you never stop seeking the truth, and have the courage to go wherver your search will take you.I returned to my faith after wandering in advaitic hinduism and buddhism as a teen.It is okay to wander, but it is not okay to stagnate even after you think something is wrong. I wish you a prosperous, and fruitful year ahead in your search, Yours Sincerely, CynicalDiogenes