The Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable

Well let me just start off by saying that you just labeled yourself as "Con" to the notion of Protestant Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable. You did not directly address my thesis, nor my arguments related to that thesis. You went completely off the rails here, and did what no rational debate should do: go outside the scope of the proposed argument. If you wanted to say that one should "disbelieve Christian Tradition even more so than one should believe Rabbinical Tradition" then you should have posted a separate debate, as they are in fact, separate subjects. Now to address your points, which again is problematic as your points do not coincide to the plaintiff's points brought up, but let's just do this anyways since I left the debate open and you went all cowboy and decided to answer. I did not ever say that the WORD of God is not sufficient, but rather that the WORD of God is not limited to SCRIPTURE anymore than your words are limited to written text. So there goes your first paragraph, but let's delve further into what you said. For as I asked, where is it written that God's word is limited only to writing? No where did I ever say that the "teachings of men" are "above the word of God". If you are referring to my proposed notion that SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, and MAGESTIRUM are all on the same highest level, then you obviously do not understand Catholic Doctrine. They are like three legs of the same stool, and serve as tools for the servants of God to better serve Him and His will. Now as to your quotes, again, this starts to fall into a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEBATE and I am unsure why you thought it wise to hijack a debate, which is so clearly about a specific Protestant Doctrine, we cannot truly move forward without completely going away from the original points. The whole Christian Doctrine, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, relies on the fact that God became Man through the hypostatic union to come to Earth to redeem man's sins and regain union with Man that was lost in the fall in Genesis. So any Christian can quote out the whazoo from the Bible, Early Church Fathers, and most any Theology to quote back at you from Holy Scripture. God did this because His will is for man to know Him, and serve Him, and love Him. I'd quote all day from the New Testament and Church Fathers/Doctors, but that would all be based on Christian Theology and this debate is not set up for an interfaith dialogue between Christian and Non-Christian theologies. So this debate is now really mute due to you going completely off the rails with it. This is why I made a statement, or thesis, and had proof for my statement. None of which you even quoted properly in your response, let alone responded to. Essentially though, all of your Biblical quotes and how you mean them are in agreement with Christian doctrine. We cannot put our faith in man, or princes, or the secular things of this world, but rather in God who gave us His son, and His son gave us His church and the Holy Spirit to guide men on Earth. He gave his disciples authority to forgive sins and the mission to evangelize and all that they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, while all that they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. See above MT citations. Just as Moses was given the Scripture, and His people were informed by Scripture granted by God, Moses' authority, and the tradition that preceded, grew, and followed all of this, so does Christ's church on Earth follow the Authority of God's Scripture, the Tradition of God's people, and the teaching authority of those who God has spoken to and through to His children on Earth. Here is a thought experiment: What does this sentence mean? "I never said you stole money." Seems pretty straight forward right? Let's do some experimenting: "I never said you stole money" changes every time in meaning when you put an emphasis on each individual word. I NEVER said you stole money...I never SAID you stole money (maybe I thought it, or wrote it)...I never said YOU stole money (I said it was someone else)....I never said you STOLE money (calling into question the verb "you" did)...I never said you stole MONEY (calling into question the noun which was stolen). How can we be sure of this without extra-scriptural knowledge? That's why we have an authoritative body who can settle such disputes and we can move forward as a community. How would any Army in the world be functional if every NCO and Officer interpreted doctrine, training, and commands each to their own independent ability? That's why there is a hierarchy of command and training to coincide with written orders and doctrine for proper interpretation. Something to consider for your off topic debate subject. Not sure where we are going to go from here, thank you for ruining this debate.