Okay, I promise that this one will be a bit more meaty.  Last week's question garnered some interesting responses, including what amounted to an admission that sola scriptura is not actually a doctrine which can be explicitly justified from any single Biblical verse.

Now, that's not normally a problem -- many doctrines are inferred from a synthesis of several Biblical teachings into one cohesive line of reasoning.  But for something like sola scriptura, the lack of explicit Biblical justification is more problematic, given that the doctrine itself requires that every valid Christian doctrine must be justified explicitly from Scripture.

Which, again, sola scriptura itself is not.

But let's begin to move away from simply noting the lack of concrete Biblical support for the doctrine.  Let's begin to move into examples of how the doctrine itself is actually contradicted by the Bible's own words.

Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition -- if not all tradition, entirely (e.g. Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8-13).  If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?

Have fun, kids!