First, however, I am a tad offended by your condescension and mind-reading act, saying I "want so badly for this scripture to make the sola scriptura argument." And maybe my pride is hurt a little by your suggestion that I can't properly handle the English language because of my emotional stake. I assure you that I am looking for truth where it may be found, and I also assure you that I am not driven by emotions on this or any other subject, except golf. And finally, I'm sorry that you're sorry for me - somehow I don't feel as impoverished spiritually as you seem to think.
Your gasoline analogy is false. Please try to follow my reasoning for saying so. I will work backward in analyzing 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
The last section of the verses is introduced by "so that." So, this is the conclusion to be drawn from what went before. The conclusion is that the man of God may be perfect, complete, fully equipped for every good work. In context, Paul is talking to Timothy about salvation, so that is the implication of this "completeness."
Now, what contributes to this perfection (completeness, full equippedness)? 1) Didactic instruction; 2) proof, evidence, and reproof; 3) Straightening of crooked paths, root word "orthosis" or the truth about a topic, namely Christ and salvation; and 4) paedia, or chastening. Paul says these are the components that can make a man perfect, complete, fully equipped.
Now, what provides these four components. Paul says "scripture." The scripture he is talking about is God-breathed. Maybe something else could have been on Paul's mind, but try to see: if scripture is a vehicle to do it, and if scripture has the breath of God in it, then why would you consider it necessary, or even advisable, to consider other sources of the components?
This passage is saying in the most straightforward Greek and English that can be used that scripture is sufficient to bring a man to salvation, completion, perfection, etc. The reason is that the scripture of which Paul speaks tells man how to know Christ really and lovingly. Since God "breathed" it, to say that something else is necessary is to say that God needed to add more to what He already considered sufficient.
Now, do the same analysis on your gasoline analogy. The "so that" is "that you have a happy journey." OK, what are the components of a happy journey? Let's say 1) a car in good condition, 2) a trunk well-packed, 3) good maps, and 4) a power source for the engine. How do we get these four components. Your argument by analogy is that gasoline will get us a happy journey, but only as a part of the process. But the analogy fails, simply because gasoline is one of the components. Paul is not saying that Scripture is one component of salvation, it is the vehicle that contains all the components.
Jude says in his epistle to contend for the faith delivered once (Gr. "once and for all") to the saints. It is not "faith" he is talking about, it is "the faith," a body of information sufficient to salvation (they are "saints," after all). It was delivered in Jude's past not in Jude's present. It was delivered "once and for all". It didn't need embellishment.
So, by Jude's time, the saving message of the gospel was complete. Paul says in 2 Tim 3:16, 17 that it was in written form and he expected his readers to know what he was talking about. Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 recognized Paul's writing as scripture and noted that twisting those writings was leading men to destruction, the opposite of salvation.
If that's sola scriptura, my apologies. I didn't mean for it to turn out that way.
As to your question about why look for "a bare minimum," I fear you don't know what the difference is between a "minimum" and a "nucleus." Perhaps because of your emotional involvement you misstated what I said :) By searching for a nucleus, I am seeking the core of the gospel, so that I can see clearly what are the accretions which have adulterated the "pure milk" of the word. And on that account, I don't distinguish between the adulteration by a protestant televangelist or by a Catholic council or a Reformation hyper-intellectualist. There is a nucleus outside of which I may tolerate what I hear, but certainly don't have to be bound. The Bible told me so.
As to "bare minimums," I'll just add that my wife and I have worked among the poor in South America full- and part-time for the last 16 years, teaching the "core" of the gospel to the best of our understanding of it, not burdening people with anything but the joy of the gospel, and rejoicing in the grace of Christ all the while. So, for what it's worth, I don't consider my walk with God impoverished
You get all of this from that one passage? Are you sure you're not bringing your own external argument to these words?
My analogy is not false. Because the subject is "Scripture" and not "gasoline" you want to add a whole bunch of other things that the text never says.