The Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable

So please actually read this time, because you clearly do not read, think, and then respond with a writing process. I will answer this in sections broken into two subsections: WHAT YOU SAID and MY RESPONSE WHAT YOU SAID: First of all, that wasn"t supposed to be my argument, it was a rough draft and it got published too soon. And yes, I argued that it is not unbiblical for the protestants to disbelieve the Catholic Church"s doctrines because they are all false. And I never went outside the scope of the argument, I meant to address your argument that scripture needs to be interpreted by the Catholic Church. Thirdly, you misquoted me and further misunderstood that misquote, I never said you should disbelieve Christian Tradition even more so than one should believe Rabbinical Tradition, I said that I disbelieve Christian Tradition even more than the Rabbinical Tradition, which isn"t aside from the debate because I was merely emphasising the extent of inaccuracy in Catholic Doctrines. MY RESPONSE: Use Spell Check. Also, you went from Firstly to Thirdly with no Secondly. But you obviously aren't a man to let little things like a writing process to get in your way. I also NEVER said that YOU said "you should disbelieve Christian Tradition", rather, I took what looked to be your thesis statement and replaced the words "I" with "one". This is ironic in that your opening statement was "My opponent is arguing that the teachings of the Christian Church are equivalent to the Law of G-d". PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I WROTE THOSE WORDS and then when you cannot, please explain your logic in deducing that as my argument instead of it being what the title of this debate is. Let me explain how debates work. You have a "plaintiff" and a "Defendant". This site calls them "instigator" and "contender" to be clever. The plaintiff's claim is that the PROTESTANT (not sub-sect of Judaism) doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA (referring to a specific doctrine, which you never addressed in Round 1 that was in fact defined in my opening argument) is UNBIBLICAL (which I provide Biblical texts refuting the definition of Sola Scriptura, more on that later) UNHISTORICAL, and therefore UNTENABLE. You defended on a DIFFERENT TOPIC, that being that all CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS WRONG. THAT BROADENS THE SCOPE OF THIS ARGUMENT. You did not even MENTION "Sola Scriptura", which is what this PARTICULAR DEBATE is putting on trial. So yes, you have gone completely outside the intended limits of this debate, and negated the whole purpose. WHAT YOU WROTE: Fourthly, Catholic teachings as well as Christian Tradition are not equal to the word of G-d, and they are both the teachings of men. They are not 3 legs of the same stool, because they all came from different sources; the first 5 books of the Tanakh came directly from G-d to Moses, the Nevi"im was written by genuine prophets of G-d, though the Ketuvim came from more than one location, psalms, however, accounts of came large chunk of it and came from Solomon, the wisest man ever to exist, and etc. As we can see, the origins of these books, the 5 books of Moses coming from the greatest prophet ever to exist according to the Tanakh, the Nevi"im from the prophets of G-d, and a large chunk of the Ketuvim coming from the wisest man ever to live, DO put them on a higher level than the Non-Testament AND Christian Tradition. Fifthly, your thought experiment is irrelevant, because the meaning of the sentence stays the same, you just put emphasis on certain parts of it to direct people's attention to a specific idea proposed. Now, I never addressed your argument because I accidentally submitted my response before I finished, so I now intend to respond fully to your arguments and dismantle every one of them. MY RESPONSE: Again, it is not my fault that you submitted your response before you were ready. You are the one who looks ill prepared as you backtrack and put an argument that should have been in Round 1 in Round 2. Everything you are saying regarding who the Author of scripture is, is either directly or indirectly in agreement with myself, Protestant doctrine, and Catholic doctrine. Except you are missing one thing...you kind of need someone to interpret what is written. How do you explain what is written to someone who cannot read? How do you interpret complicated rules and ornate poetry to the masses? You need a body of people with authority to do so and tradition to carry it forth. Your faith and all faiths exist because people passed it on both orally and through writing in conjunction with their traditions. That's how the world works. Again, you MISQUOTED ME FORM THE START when you said my thesis was, "My opponent is arguing that the teachings of the Christian Church are equivelent to the Law of G-d." I would ask once again to use the spell check feature, and to actually read my argument BECAUSE I DO NOT SAY THAT ANYWHERE and therefore you are totally OFF TOPIC. WHAT YOU SAID: "No, but you cannot "prove" an argument of yours simply by stating that there is no proof against it because there also aren"t any scriptures that say that scripture is insufficient. " MY RESPONSE: Read my argument under "unbiblical" and read my quotation from 2 TH where it is written that both TRADITION, whether ORAL or WRITTEN is what we should rely on. Therefore implying, that scripture ALONE (again, going back to the actual thesis you never addressed regarding SOLA SCRIPTURA) is not biblical. WHAT YOU WROTE: First of all, Jesus didn"t make a church, as a matter of fact there were no official Christian Churches until over 100 years after his death. If I remember correctly, Jesus actually said "call no man rabbi" in Matthew 23:8-9, and that HE was the mediator between man and G-d who said that you don"t need man to connect to G-d in 1st Timothy 2:5. This is obcourse false, all of it, but it"s what your Christian scriptures so you have to agree with them. MY RESPONSE: First of all, we don't call people Rabbi, and secondly yes Jesus did. " And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[c] in heaven." 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ." MT 16:18-20 BUILD MY CHURCH. And yes, there was maybe no OFFICIAL church until the fourth century, but immediately after Pentecost the Apostles carried on Christ's mission and IMMEDIATELY began Evangelizing. I would also love it if you gave a source for your notion of the "official churches" not being around until "100 years after his death". Jesus first saw Mary announcing his Resurrection to them THREE DAYS after his death, thus making them the first witnesses of the Christian faith. But I'm sure you're a New Testament expert. WHAT YOU WROTE: Exodus 34:27: "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." MY RESPONSE Yes, but where does it say it MUST ONLY be written in RELATION SOLA SCRIPTURA being the CENTER OF THIS ARGUMENT. YOU'RE OFF TOPIC. SOLA = ONLY SCRIPTURA = WRITTEN. WHERE IS THE ONLY!? Again, you ruined this debate in your very first sentence of your first response. You did not even UNDERSTAND what this debate was about apparently and we are totally off topic. This is not an interfaith dialogue between Christian and Non-Christian, as you wanted it to be. Thanks again for ruining this debate, please think before you respond so quickly next time you decide to cowboy it up where you should not.