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

Pro again gave the complete rebuttal based on distortion of my all arguments.We see still not a single positive evidence for his case. I will try my best this time to leave absolutely no chance of misunderstanding so that all the readers especially Catholics, can have no excuse in denying the evidences I presented.I gave great evidence from the OT that it teaches Sola Scripture(SS) & it has no indication of any oral law. This refutes the position of both Rabbinic Judaism & my catholic opponent on the Oral law. Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for their self-authorization on the Law as they “have seated themselves in the seat of Moses.” In Matt 23 he told the crowd to listen whatever they teach, but never take them as authority of Moses, because they did teach some true and meaningful things of the scripture after all, however they were farthest from the truth overall. As NET Bible translates “pay attention to what they tell you & do it.” Nowhere did Jesus indicate that Sanhedrin has any divine authority over the law to be authoritative on anything including interpretation. In fact anyone who has read the Gospels would know that Jesus openly rebuked, condemned & abused them.Rabbinic Judaism Vs Catholicism (Pharisees take the authority of Moses: Popes snatches the seat of Peter)You can’t possibly imagine that Jesus agreed with the Pharisees. If Oral law of Sanhedrin was true and Pharisees were right; that entails—Jesus was a false prophet and he was rightly killed for his crimes and today’s Jews are correct in their tradition of abusing, cursing him.Sadducees were no different at all; they only believed torah to be inspired and rejected all prophets. This is a grave mistake in my view that a catholic would go on to claim that even Jesus supported Oral law and authority of Pharisees. I have proved that not only OT doesn’t have any oral law but strict SS but Jesus too enforced the same. Pro made strawman attacks: When I said the NT always appeals to the scripture, I mean the OT is maintained as only divine authority. So the catholic will either have to agree with Rabbis or with SolaScripture; either way he will have to deny Catholicism.The context of James 1:4 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 can’t be equated. I explained James is talking about a specific context to his audience- they need to endure in hardship. Endurance is one of the ingredients the man of God need in the Church life. Paul on the other hand was speaking of the general context on the nature of Scripture. He says the Scripture contains everything so that the man of God may be complete and fully equipped in every work of Church- that is to say the Scripture is the rule book, absolute divine authority. Moreover the word for ‘complete’ or 'perfect' used in James 1:4; Matt 19:21 etc is “teleios” meaning “mature, grown, more perfect” and so on. Paul was careful in his word selection here, he used “artios” the word appears only once in the NT; it means “complete, adequate, proficient, prepared to work efficient, fully complete and ready”; do a lexicon study on the various top sources of greek for detail. Paul goes on to define what it means “fully equipped for every good work” and in v16 he gave the list of all works of the Church that a man needs. He explained the meaning of “sufficiency” in a great detail- or rather should we say “absolute sufficiency”. Compare how similar the verse 1 Kings 2:3-4 is with Paul’s words.Further Pro again distorted my words when I said the Bible is meant to be authority for all time for all people, I don’t mean that there are no specific contexts present in it as to for whom its written, I said about the nature & significance of Scripture in response to his misconception as he sees the scripture as “a bunch of letters written by some guys to some guys.”Church Tradition Vs Tradition of ManIt is important to note, since he repeatedly misses my arguments I have to explain this in detail. Whenever the apostles instruct to hold the tradition; they meant the true tradition of Church. Don’t have a false notion of the word “church” as if it means some authority of council, physical building, Vatican or Sanhedrin. The Gospel was initially taught orally. The Church tradition is whatever the apostles preached: Whatever that is sufficient and necessary for believers for every good work of the Church is written in Scripture. Means whatever corresponds with the Scripture is the true tradition. The Scripture is the very basis, foundation & authority for Church Tradition (CT). CT is the behavior obedience practice of the Gospel.CT was taught and preached orally first. Early Church had CT; even if in early years some Churches did not have the full list of 27 books with them, such as revelation or a couple of epistles, that doesn’t mean those Churches were not saved. It’s not necessary to have all 27 books in order to have CT. CT was preached orally and then in written The scripture contains everything sufficient for all works of the Church for a believer. Therefore to test what is CT: the only criteria & is scripture alone. Whatever goes beyond sound doctrine is Man’s Tradition (MT) I never said that the Gospel can and should be preached in written only. I repeatedly said the CT was taught and then written that is the Scripture. God preserved the CT, Sound doctrine through preserving Scripture from the time of Moses. Scripture alone is authority for all sound doctrine and CT. Doctrines can be preached in any means of communication; orally, sign lang, sms, facebook etc.More relevant are the passages where Paul urges the readers to hold firm the “Sound Doctrine” (1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 2:1) He exhorted to rebuke and reprove anyone who contradicts with sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 6:3 Titus 1:9Titus, Timothy and any early Christian corrected, rebuked the false gospels by the authority of true Gospel the sound doctrine that apostles preached. They had the true Gospel and it was sufficient enough to correct others even if they had it orally. The Scripture have been the written evidence to correct those who contradict till today. No where the scripture did indicates of any extra biblical authority. This is how the Word of God endures forever, from the time of Moses till today and forever. Man has tried deliberately to distort and deny the only divine authority- the Scripture, but it endures and we continue to reprove, rebuke and correct those who contradict and follow another Gospel.Deu 31:10-11 ceremonial public reading of the law in seven years is irrelevant. The public reading was not the only source of learning the law, they had other copies and they remembered the doctrines.Proverb 7:1-3 God has revealed his Words and preserved them as evidence as the Scripture. God never said “keep the words of xyz leaders, rabbis of popes, Sanhedrin or Vatican”.Epistemic Defeat of Catholic argumentHe couldn’t give any defense to any of the arguments that refutes the case of Catholicism that support anti-sola scripture to hold it’s “MT”. I proved, we have the true CT and the Canon without any external source just as the Jews possessed the Canon of OT through True tradition. Tradition doesn’t mean extra biblical. We have great evidence of the preservation of the Canon of both OT and the NT. Jews never believed the apocrypha as Scripture, it’s only the catholics who added those books in the list anyways. The argument that we need a divine Y as source for believing a divine X is proven fallacious as its circular. We believe in the divine infallible scripture by our human fallible mind just as we believe in infallible God or any infallible truth by the same mind. That’s based on evidence that God preserved & sound logic.Pro even attempted to agree with Rabbinic Judaism which was a grave mistake; but we should understand, in order to defend his position, he will need to take such radical grave stances. The misinterpretation of all the biblical testimony is also necessary for him.