So if your doctrines came 1600 years after my doctrines, and Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail over his Church, it seems pretty obvious whose doctrines are "of men."
....Particularly when you consider all the non-scriptural doctrines you have to impose to maintain and interpret in a sola scriptura framework.
My “doctrines” are strictly found in scripture which that last, Revelation, was written around 96AD. One of the doctrines of the RCC wasn’t “codified” until the 1950s. My doctrines are all contained in inspired scripture. Some of RCC doctrines are supposedly contained in “oral tradition” of fallible mortal man. Now, I can’t assume what your doctrines are but if you meant the RCC doctrines it would appear that my “doctrines” can be traced back much farther.
>>and Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail over his Church,<<
Yes He did. And He was very clear that He was the head of that church and not some guy in Rome.
>>it seems pretty obvious whose doctrines are "of men."<<
It certainly does. It’s also very clear that the doctrines of men include such things as special cups, what not to eat on certain days etc.
Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Doctrines of men would include claiming something that goes in the belly means something.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Non of my doctrines contain any of those rules or “doctrines of men”.
I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura thank you very much. I would hope you know the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.