Resolved: The Bible does not teach that it alone is sufficient

Con writes "Read - Joshua 1:8 ;Deu 31:24-26 ;Exodus 24: 7-8; 34:27"Note that it specifies "what is written in the Law of Moses" (emphasis mine). I assume that you take this to mean the New Testament has no value? You can succeed in all that you do by merely following the written Law of Moses, is that right? That seems to be the point you're trying to make with this.Con writes "He rebukes them for their so called self-authorization on the law or scripture."False. He rebuked them for their hypocrisy."Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." - Matthew 23:3If Jesus was telling the crowd that the Pharisees had no authority, he sure picked an odd way to do it. I think it's overwhelmingly probably that most people in the crowd would interpret the words "do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you" to mean that they ought to "do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you". How do you interpret that?Con writes "He doesn’t seem to understand what the Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism is."Con doesn't seem to understand what Rabbinic Judaism is, else he'd know that Rabbinic Judaism is founded on the theology of the Pharisees, who held that their interpretations had Mosaic authority, a concept supported by Jesus telling the people to "do and observe all things whatsoever they [the Pharisees and scribes] tell you".Oddly enough, the Sadducees rejected the oral Torah and accepted only the written one. I don't recall Jesus telling anyone to do and observe their practices.Con writes "The Pharisees taught the scripture, that’s why Jesus said listen to their teachings; that doesn’t mean their interpretation was true."First of all, there's the obvious problem that the Pharisees didn't teach the scripture (well they did, but they also taught the oral Torah). Second of all, if their interpretation was dead wrong, why would Jesus say to listen to them?Matthew 15:3"He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?Clearly, Jesus didn't think you should break commandments of God in favor of tradition, and that you cannot nullify his commandments with tradition.Con writes "So there is no indication of Oral Torah or tradition apart from the written scripture throughout the Bible."False.Con writes "We have ample negative evidence against the tradition of men (that goes against the scripture) in the NT."So... tradition can't go against scripture. If it doesn't go against scripture, what's wrong with it?Although my opponent has decided not to provide any of his "ample negative evidenceCon writes "Almost whenever the word “tradition” is used in negative sense, just as Jesus, Apostle Paul also condemned tradition of men"Again, don't cling to traditions of men over the commands of God, but you've still given no evidence that all tradition is of men. Even the Bible is a tradition of sorts, and Paul also spoke positively of tradition. More on this later.Con writes "When he mentioned the true tradition, he distinguished it by saying that the true tradition is what you have already received from us, the one that corresponds to the scriptures"If by "correspond" you mean "be analogous to in function", then yes, you're right. There would obviously be no need for tradition, "true" or not, if the scriptures are all you need.Con writes "Objection to 2 Tim 3:16-17 is false"Con also writes "He takes an absurd interpretation on James 1:4. It is illogical to read it, that if it talks that the context of endurance and sanctification is referred as an ingredient of completeness, and then it excludes the Scriptures."Turn. That "absurd interpretation" was intentionally stupid, and is of course an illogical reading. However, it's pretty much the exact same conclusion reached by you in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; that the scriptures are sufficient for all. Why isn't just my perseverance sufficient?Con writes "Would such reader also misinterpret the context that it even Jesus isn’t required for completion?"Quite probably, if he was the sort that would misinterpret the context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to say that scripture is sufficient for everything.Con writes "2 Tim 3:16-17 gives a clear exhaustive list"I again ask, why do you ignore where Paul specifically exhorts Timothy to hold fast to tradition? That would be a pointless exercise if the scripture alone is enough. I also find it mildly curious that you consider two verses out of the entire Bible to be a "clear exhaustive list".Con writes "I ask him how he answers the objection of Jews from oral tradition which denies Sola Scripture."Fortunately, this debate is not about how I answer the objection of Jews from oral tradition.Con writes "If he holds Sola Scripture for OT then how the Jews maintained the OT Canon (until the coming of Christ) apart from any divine oral tradition and council?"Excellent question, my friend. How did the Christians maintain the NT canon apart from any divine oral tradition and council?Con writes "I hope he doesn’t repeat the absurd claim that the Jewish OT canon was false until after centuries later catholics added apocrypha into the canon."Although this is irrelevant, you're blatantly wrong. "Apocrypha" was never added into the canon "centuries later".Con writes "They never meant only for immediate context but for all believers for all times."So you claim that when 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 6:1 are things that all Christians are obligated to fully keep even today?Hey, maybe you do. Who am I to judge? Just don't try to put any of that stuff in context; because they were apparently meant for all believers for all times, despite having been specifically written to certain people in a historical context that Con deigns to ignore fully.Con writes "No council was necessary to affirm what was already true"Con never showed why he accepts the canon, he just pretty much accepts it as a given and argues that he has every right to presume it while I have no right to presume the church.Con writes "when we know that Scripture alone is the sole authority for ALL works of Church."You mean when you yourself have concluded that the scripture alone is the sole authority? Tell me; for what purpose does the church exist if nothing more than the Bible is needed?Con writes "we don’t need to have an external source to know about something to be true or divine"Yes we do. It's called God.Con writes "rather the Churches had the books as they were circulated."There was severe debate about the canonicity of several of the books, such as Revelation. How would such a thing be possible if any old person can tell what scripture is inspired?Con writes " the true Gospel was initially taught orally"And for some reason you assume the entire thing was written down, despite clear exhortations for people to hold to tradition as well as scriptures.Con also writes "It always appeals to the written scripture"So what you're saying it can't appeal to the true Gospel, which was initially taught orally.Con writes "2 Pet 1:20 is misinterpreted by catholics; v21 makes the context clear that the Scripture is inspired by God, it’s not a personal interpretation and creation of the prophets, but Holy Spirit"So then how do you, the fallible one, draw an interpretation from it? Are you infallible? I may have messed up the order of my opponent's statements somewhat, sorry.Argument:For whatever reason, my opponent has taken it upon himself to deem that oral teachings are dead and that now the teachings of God can only be gleaned from the scriptures, while not supporting this claim.2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 4:2 ("proclaim", not "write"), Titus 1:3, 1 Peter 1:25, 2 John 1:12, Deuteronomy 31:10-11.Since the Word abides forever and my opponent has given no reason to claim the entire Word is in the Bible, his argument fails.In Deuteronomy, the scripture was only read once every seven years. Were they bereft of salvation in the interim?Out of space.