Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

I haven't addressed your arguments yet because I wanted to first make sure that we are debating about the same thing. A lot of people try to refute Sola Scriptura not knowing that what they are trying to refute is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. I also wanted to make sure that I am not arguing against a misinterpretation of your view. "Christianity is the source of Holy Scriptures, not vice versa" I want to address this first because this is very important and very foundational to our debate. I completely disagree with this statement. Everything we know about God and what He wants from us, is through God Himself condescending and revealing it to us. We don't know God through our own wisdom, He revealed Himself to us. He did it through creation, and special revelation, which means directly speaking to us in our language through messengers and ultimately through His own Son Jesus, and of course Jesus' spokespersons, the apostles. We don't have to debate about whether the physical authors of the Bible are inspired by God. We can both agree that every word they wrote were God's words and not their own. How can you say that Holy Scriptures is from Christianity? Was Moses and the chosen people of God, the Israelites, the source of the law? were they the source of the OT? Of course not! God is the source of the written Word of God and it has authority over every one, including the physical authors, not vice versa. The Christian faith is founded on, grounded on and governed by the Word of God, which includes Scriptures, the written Word of God. This issue is very important and is the foundation of your rejection of Sola Scriptura. You have elevated the authority of the Church leaders over the authority of Scriptures. "Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural" This is simply false. Jesus Himself when not appealing to his own divine authority, appealed to the written Word to verify his claims and teachings. We see Jesus several times say "for it is written" or "have you not read" etc. Jesus never appealed to traditions. In Mark 7:6-13, He rebukes the Pharisees, who had "traditions" of their own. He tells them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." "...thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." Jesus here quotes the Scriptures to show the Pharisees how crooked they and their traditions are. The Apostles also taught and encouraged the church to examine the Scriptures. Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Paul here commends the Bereans because they looked to the authority of the written Word of God, not traditions, to verify if the apostles teachings were true. 2 Timothy 3:14-16 "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." As you pointed out Paul here was not talking about the NT. No educated Sola Scripturist would claim otherwise. But we clearly see that the concept of Sola Scriptura is there. The concept of appealing to the authority of the written Word. 1 Corinthians 4:6 “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.” Here we see Paul teaching the Corinthians to not place Apollos and himself above the authority of the written Word of God. So again, we see the concept of Sola Scriptura. We never see the apostles say to the Church, "Just trust us, we're apostles!" even though they had the authority to do so, given to them by Jesus. They appealed the the written, verified, cannonical Word of God, to prove their claims and teachings. No one was being anti Sola Scriptura back then except for the Pharisees who had their own traditions, and then of course later on, the gnostics, who claimed to have the true apostolic "traditions", and even more recently Rome's papacy who claims to be the vicars of Christ. "The early Church did not and could not practice Sola Scriptura" They clearly did. The apostles taught the early churches to reject any teaching that is contrary to what they taught. This was easier for the churches that were directly under the apostles, they had direct contact with source of these teachings. But what about the second generation and the ones after, when the apostles were long gone? They held on to written gospels and the apostles letters. We already know from the numerous surviving manuscripts of the NT writings that the early Christians were circulating the apostles' written teachings and letters. The early Church fathers quoted numerously from the writings of the apostles, in fact, we can reproduce the whole NT just with the quotations of the early church fathers. This is how the church survived the attacks of false teachings like the gnostic gospels. The whole point of making an NT canon was to make sure that the church stays true to what Jesus and the apostle's taught. Speaking of NT canon heres a quote from Irenaeus: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1] Here's another quote from an early Church father, Gregorry of Nyssa: "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [2] "Traditions and 2 Thessalonians 2:15" Im running out of space but I'd like to just ask you to list all the oral doctrines, that weren't in writing that Paul was referring to in this verse, and prove to me that they were practiced by the early church. P.S. The concept of the Trinity is based on Scriptures ONLY. Luke 17:20-21 What does the Biblical fact that the kingdom of God is not a physical, earthly kingdom but instead a spiritual one that is established in the heart of every believer have to do with our debate? [1] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers(Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [2] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers(Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439.