Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura

As far as the claim that Paul proves sola scriptura, the fact that Paul appeals to Scripture does not mean that he believed it was the only authority to which one could appeal. In fact, Paul appealed to lesser authorities, such as pagan poets and philosophers (see Acts 17), so Paul can't be said to believe the Bible is the only authority to which one can appeal concerning matters of faith and morals. As a side note, Scripture itself elsewhere quotes from non canonicals books such as Jude, who quotes from the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Notice in Jude that he appeals to these as authorities to prove his point, a fact not consistent with "sola Scriptura". Acts 17:11, where the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily, again, does not prove Scripture is the ONLY authority. Just because someone appeals to Scripture, doesn't mean that is the only source they believe is authoritative. You argue "Thus, the Jewish people listened AND searched the Scriptures to determine if Paul erred; if they determined he was did, they felt authorized to harm him because he violated their Scriptures. In other words, he violated the sole authority for their faith and practice. This is Sola Scriptura." This does not logically follow. Just because someone searches the Scriptures to see if what someone teaches is true doesn't mean that is the sole rule of authority, as it is possible they believe other sources in addition to Scripture or at least lesser authorities than Scripture. You claim "Christ's quoted the Scriptures and we understand He did this to appeal to a common highest authority. Here are numerous examples". Notice you are arguing that he appealed to Scripture as the "highest authority". This is not what we are debating. This view is known as Prima Scriptura, as I tried to explain to you in the previous round. What we are debating is if Scripture is the sole rule of authority. You have recognized that sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the sole authority for determining matters of faith and morals in your first sentence of the second round, yet, you seem to have failed to grasp the distinction between an appeal to Scripture as a "sole" rule of faith and an appeal to Scripture as the "highest" rule of faith. Your assertion that Jesus appealed to Scripture as the "highest authority" is debatable, and I would like to debate it, but it is not relevant to our debate here. I believe here you have conceded the debate, because you claimed Jesus taught Scripture is the "highest" authority. Implied in the word "highest" is the notion that there are "lesser" authorities. Thus, you have conceded there are other lesser authorities other than Scripture, which is a concession that sola Scriptura is false. Perhaps you failed to grasp this distinction and thus did not intend to disprove sola Scriptura, but the fact is, your failure to grasp this distinction has, in essence, conceded the debate. Your appeal to Moses and Ezra doesn't logically follow for the reasons I've mentioned several times above. Additionally, Jews would argue that Moses also passed on an oral tradition which was also authoritative. You said "On an aside, an absurdity remains: this debate is almost over and we STILL do not agree upon a definition for Sola Scriptura." and then you went on a long diatribe pontificating as to why I am confusing things by simply quoting a definition from Oxford. To refute this, I simply say that I agree with your definition you provided here, when you said: "Again, to define this term, Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible (Scriptura) is the sole (Sola) authority for Christian teaching." Your claim that "this bantering is of sinful man" is an ad hominem and a cheap debate tactic. You say "If you believe G-d spoke the world into existence (Genesis) then it will not tax you to believe that he preserved His word." Where have I argued that God has not preserved His word? In fact, I have argued for this in another debate. Your claim "The Bible is His preserved "Scriptura" and is therefore your "Sola" source for living a Christian life." does not logically follow for the reasons I mentioned above. I must say, I'm pretty disappointed with this debate as I was looking for more cogent arguments.