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

This is not just my acceptance but I thought of presenting my arguments in this round itself so that Pro will be comfortable to address them, in addition he can address other arguments of Sola Scripture to rebut, that I didn’t give.I will be defending contentions like:a) Bible does teaches Sola Scripture ie. Scripture alone to be all sufficientb) Catholics faces the fatal counter tradition of Rabbinic Judaism who holds the very same contention. c) Epistemological defeat in presupposing a council to be authorityLet me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. 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.Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work."The word for complete or adequate (artios) and “fully equipped” exērtismenos.There are other references as well but for not I feel its redundant to quote them now, moreover all are already aware that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the most explicit evidence we have. And by this one verse the debate should be over. But it doesn’t, so rather et us discuss those arguments which are made on the interpretation of those verses. I will later show more evidence from the Bible. I also can’t expect the Catholics to quote anything outside of Scripture to support it.Catholicism Vs Orthodox Judaism :The unbelieving Jewish arguments can be seen as very same with the arguments of Catholics in support of oral and traditional authority of some council just as the Rabbis hold Sanhedrin to be possessing oral law. Catholics hold that the Vatican council holds the authority to interpret the scripture. Whosoever disagree with them cannot be true. This is a fatal flaw in the contention of Catholics. If we take Catholic arguments to be compelling that the Scripture was not the sole authority of faith and doctrines, then we cannot ignore the very same case that Jews believe, that too they used to reject Jesus. I’d like to see my opponent refuting the Jewish case of oral tradition apart from Scripture by using Old Testament books. Epistemic defeat: Catholic apologists have argued against Evangelicals that the arguments supporting Sola Scripture fails on epistemology of man. Arguing, that they can’t know about the list of Canon books from scripture, the knowledge of canon will have to come outside of scripture. The knowledge concerning Canon must be infallible, otherwise we can’t be sure whether or not it’s inspired and what books are they. And we as Catholics have infallible source of the Canon which is the council or church which gave them the infallible knowledge.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? It causes an infinite regress. They need to understand that human epistemology is by definition fallible. An individual in flesh will always remain fallible in his knowledge. The council or anyone outside of an individual cannot feed any infallible data in your mind, they cannot ‘know’ in place of others. The knowledge about the Church whether or not it’s true Church of Christ or not is just as depended on an individual as the knowledge for Canon. God being infallible communicated with us through revealed (infallible) scripture. Now if you argue that there is an infallible council which would tell us about the infallible scripture; there is no difference and change in this argument. The human will still remain fallible. The sources of knowledge concerning those infallible objects (scripture or God) will remain same.It is easy to understand that the knowledge concerning Canon and Scripture or the Gospel will remain inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive. We know about the Canon list, history, compilations or the message of Gospel through ‘investigation’. In order to make your reasoning deductive, you need to presuppose the truth of a council or a committee – I can presuppose the canon scripture itself the same way. The point is, this objection of catholic’s is fallacious and flawed. We knew the canon by the very means the Jews at the time and before him knew the Jewish canon, the personal investigation, and knowledge or say tradition. Do not say they believed in Old Testament Canon because the Sanhedrin council and leaders sanctioned it being infallible.Catholics must remember not to confuse the tradition with something essentially extra-scriptural. Whenever the apostles talks about tradition, they mean whatever they already delivered to them through by evangelism. (2 Thess 3:6; 2 Thess 2:15) In 2:15 he says “whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” Meaning whatever the tradition should be, have been taught to them and that the scripture is the evidence of true tradition. Ther is no evidence of oral tradition outside of the Scripture. Let me hear the case of my opponent and I hope he address more arguments that I haven’t given or don’t know, so that we can debate.