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

Without further ado, I will begin. Sadly, much of my opponent's case is irrelevant. Con writes ". .. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. "Fair enough. That entire paragraph seems reasonable. Con writes "Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. .. "Again, fair enough. Con writes "Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. "At the moment, I see no problem with this, but it is suspiciously worded. Con writes "All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. "Contentious. Con writes "The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. "This is just stupid. I could say "The Catholic Church's authority comes from its nature as God's Church, and because of that its authority is not dependent on any scriptures. Let me now use the Catholic Church to prove itself. ". Con writes "2 Timothy 3:16-17"Nice try, but I happen to be conducting an investigation into those two verses. First, 2 Timothy 3:14-15"(14) But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, (15) and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. "Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed. .. right before Paul says you need nothing but scriptures? I don't think so. Especially considering that the sacred scriptures in question are revealed by these two verses to be the OLD TESTAMENT (should be obvious Timothy didn't know the New Testament from infancy). So even if this does show that you need nothing but the scriptures (which I disagree with), it's saying all you need is the Old Testament (my RSV-2CE's footnote concurs with my conclusion). Additionally, I present James 1:4"(4) And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. "Who needs the scriptures? This one verse, taken out of context and in complete defiance of logic, is telling me that perseverance will make me complete and lacking in nothing. So then, what do I need the scriptures for? You can't reject that that is the meaning of this verse without also rejecting that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves sola scriptura, and if you don't reject that meaning the verse itself shows that scripture is not necessary at all. The early Christians made it hundreds of years without a NT canon. Just making a slight prediction, all the "other references" you have are likely to be referring to the Old Testament. Catholicism vs Orthodox JudaismCompletely irrelevant. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodox Judaism needs to be involved in this debate, and for the life of me I cannot see why my opponent saw fit to do so. Despite this, I will say that you're wrong because Jesus himself accepted Rabbinic tradition. Observe Matthew 23. "(1) Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, (2) saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat upon the chair of Moses. (3) Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. ". So the Jews were not guided by sola scriptura, and Jesus acknowledged this. Epistemic DefeatEqually irrelevant, but this does bring up some interesting questions. For instance, how can someone's "personal investigations" divine what scriptures are inspired? The Church predates the scriptures, so if I had to pick either the Church or the scriptures I'd definitely go with the Church. Con writes "The problem in this argument is that it’s self-defeating. For how does the catholic came to know whether the council or the church is really the true church? Who gave them the (infallible) knowledge about the Church? Their friend or apologists did? "And yours isn't? How did you come to know whether the scriptures are really the true scriptures? Who gave you infallible knowledge about the scriptures? Bible Challenge! Do not look up the scriptures in question, although with my luck you'll probably have them memorized. "I give thanks to my God always, remembering you in my prayers,""For the grace of God has appeared, saving all""Knowing then that God is not mocked, we ought to walk worthily of his commandment and his glory"Just by looking at these, can you tell me which one(s) is (are) inspired and which one(s) is (are) not, and your grounds for making that decision? Con writes "We knew the canon by the very means the Jews at the time and before him knew the Jewish canon"Well, that's not really a powerful recommendation as Jews around the 1st and 2nd centuries realized they were using the wrong canon, as it hadn't even been closed yet. I think that analogy was much more apt than you originally intended. Con writes "Ther is no evidence of oral tradition outside of the Scripture. "Assertion. My Case:Since I've wasted a bunch of characters arguing against irrelevant arguments, my case will be short.1. The Church wrote the scripturesBefore my opponent makes some sort of claim that God wrote the scriptures or something, I will concede that the scriptures are inspired writing. However, that does not change the fact that the scriptures themselves were a product of the early Church, created to help teach and bring people to Christ it is true, but not intended to be a definitive be-all end-all reference for everything the Church taught. Merely looking at the New Testament shows this, it's mostly a bunch of epistles to specific people/places. Additionally, as I have already mentioned, the Church existed without a canon of the scriptures for quite some time.2. TimingNote when the NT was written. They were written in the times of the early Church, often to combat specific heresies. It stands to reason that they would omit things that may have been common knowledge at the time for the early Church, but that we wouldn't know of if the only thing we had was the scriptures.3. Various Scripture"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. "Note: in opposition to the teaching that you learned. Not the scriptures you have read. Sure, you can claim Paul meant the teachings of the scriptures, but that then begs the question why he didn't say something more along the lines of "in opposition to the scriptures". Matthew 18:17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. "The Church mediates disputes, and if you don't listen to it you are to be treated as a tax collector. Ouch. With all the disputes about who's right regarding the billions of interpretations drawn from "scripture alone", don't you think now's a good time to go to the Church?1 Corinthians 11:2"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. "Traditions without any mention of scriptures, hmm. You can always just assert every tradition ever is in the scriptures, but it stands to reason these passages would be more likely to say things like "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the epistles that I wrote you" if that was actually the case. As Peter says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,", and there's no way to interpret the Bible outside of the Church in an impersonal way. Sola scriptura ought to be rejected, although most of my arguments were not relevant to the actual resolution. Thank you, and I turn it over to my opponent.