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

Read - Joshua 1:8 ;Deu 31:24-26 ;Exodus 24: 7-8; 34:27In 1 Kings 2. David is about to die and wants to give his son, Solomon, some last words which he will need to be a successful king:“3-4 Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is WRITTEN in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in ALL that you do and wherever you turn, so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me” (NASB)No Oral LawPro says “Jesus himself accepted Rabbinic tradition” Matt 23:1-3 but the whole chapter reveals the opposite. Jesus rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees explaining how corrupted their behavior is. V1 says they have taken the position of Moses. He rebukes them for their so called self-authorization on the law or scripture. In fact it is so explicit throughout the Gospel Jesus rebuked the tradition of leaders.He doesn’t seem to understand what the Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism is. The Rabbinic and Orthodox Jews teach there was Oral Law given to Moses on Sinai along with the written; it was given for interpretation and detailed observation of the law. The oral torah in time was also written for preservation (just as catechism and other writings of Catholicism), its Talmud and other writings of the tradition. Rabbis claim that the Sanhedrin council or the council of leaders hold the sole authority for interpretation. They claim personal interpretation is forbidden and impossible. Jesus referred them as the tradition of men which goes against the scripture. The Pharisees taught the scripture, that’s why Jesus said listen to their teachings; that doesn’t mean their interpretation was true. I don’t think we need any ref of how many times. Take for ex Matt 15:1-14 So there is no indication of Oral Torah or tradition apart from the written scripture throughout the Bible. We have ample negative evidence against the tradition of men (that goes against the scripture) in the NT. It always appeals to the written scripture, the authors refer “it is written” to quote and allude to the Old Testament passages, and the phrase is used about 54 times in the NT.Almost whenever the word “tradition” is used in negative sense, just as Jesus, Apostle Paul also condemned tradition of men (Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8)When he mentioned the true tradition, he distinguished it by saying that the true tradition is what you have already received from us, the one that corresponds to the scriptures (2 Thess 2:15 & 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2)Objection to 2 Tim 3:16-17 is false, because the verse talks about the origin, nature and function of the Scripture, it doesn’t talk about the canon or limiting the OT in the context. Notice that the verses neither require that Timothy must possess the full NT nor that the NT should be closed and completed at the time of this letter. The verse only talks about the function and nature of every scripture. There is no reason why should we think these verses aren’t implying EVERY scripture as he writes, rather than talking only about OT. Verse 15 could refer specifically to the OT, but that doesn’t mean why should the next verse which clearly says ‘EVERY Scripture’ is excluding the NT. Apostles did not differentiated the NT writings with OT when they talked about “scriptures”. Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 equates and include Paul’s epistles in “scriptures”. Pro’s argument can’t be consistently held unless one believes that only the OT is inspired scripture and adequate for all those things which makes a person capable for every good work of Church. Such skeptic must exclude NT to be inspired scripture.He takes an absurd interpretation on James 1:4. The context is talking about sanctification, perseverance in faith in many trails. It is illogical to read it, that if it talks that the context of endurance and sanctification is referred as an ingredient of completeness, and then it excludes the Scriptures. Would such reader also misinterpret the context that it even Jesus isn’t required for completion? Where does any verse explicitly says “only Jesus is sufficient for every good work and all the functions of man in the Church”? That’s an argument from silence. 2 Tim 3:16-17 gives a clear exhaustive list that the Scripture is required and adequate for all the function of man needed for the Church- that’s an explicit definition of what “sufficiency” mean. Neither James nor any single author in any verse indicated of any oral tradition or law which is required apart from the scripture.Pro either didn’t understand or tried to ignore the argument that the Rabbinic Judaism refutes the same concept and arguments of Oral tradition that my opponent holds.I ask him how he answers the objection of Jews from oral tradition which denies Sola Scripture. If Pro affirms the arguments of Rabbis then how can he consistently consider the NT to be scripture because Rabbinic Judaism rejects Jesus? If he holds Sola Scripture for OT then how the Jews maintained the OT Canon (until the coming of Christ) apart from any divine oral tradition and council? I hope he doesn’t repeat the absurd claim that the Jewish OT canon was false until after centuries later catholics added apocrypha into the canon. Why would God let the apostles and Jews to have a false canon for thousands of years?Epistemic defeat: Pro again seems to miss the argument. I explained how fallible human knowledge doesn’t restrict us from believing in something “infallible”. For example we believe various infallible truths be it 2+2, scientific facts or the idea of God, that’s all obviously only through the fallible mind. Catholics argued- in order to believe infallible X you need an infallible source Y (council or roman church). That’s fallacious; as I showed how on earth the catholic got to ‘know’ about the infallible source Y without any infallible source for it? Its obvious fact that human epistemology is by nature not infallible; we don’t need to have an external source to know about something to be true or divine. Catholics use circular logic by presupposing their Council to be true in their argument. He even assumes circular logic to prove his Church let him do that as in the light of Scripture his tradition proves false.His arguments: Church through the apostles gave the NT scripture, true. That doesn’t mean the books are “a bunch of epistles to some people” rather the Apostles knew their letters are “scripture” they instructed the scripture should be read by all Churches or every believers (1 Thes 5:27; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1 Col 4:16 etc) They never meant only for immediate context but for all believers for all times. The early Churches circulated the books among themselves and heavily copied to preserve. No council was necessary to affirm what was already true and no book became canonical by the action of any church council, rather the Churches had the books as they were circulated. The same way Sanhedrin never had authority over OT Canon. Sola Scripture doesn’t mean that Church couldn’t stand without 27 canon books; the true Gospel was initially taught orally then the same was written as evidence for all generations. The truth of true Church & its tradition is whatever that is written in scripture.He again argued from silence that Rom 16:17 is talking of some mysterious extra biblical tradition when we know what NT mean by true tradition and teachings. On Matt 17:18 again he presume that “Church” is something extra biblical council (Vatican or Sanhedrin) when we know that Scripture alone is the sole authority for ALL works of Church. 2 Pet 1:20 is misinterpreted by catholics; v21 makes the context clear that the Scripture is inspired by God, it’s not a personal interpretation and creation of the prophets, but Holy Spirit, v19 emphasize Scripture alone, again no extra-biblical tradition anywhere in the Bible. We have immense positive evidence that Bible instructs SS.