It's one of the oldest principles in the book.
That said -- papacy for the bishop of Rome, as that has come to be known, as it developed into being (this development confessed to by many Roman Catholic historians, and justified by liars such as Cardinal Newman) was a thing entirely unheard of in the earliest formations of the Church, or else guys like Newman would not have had to accept then expand upon the concepts offered up as excuses for the lack of factual/historical foundation for "popery".
Sorry, but you lose, again.
You will continue to lose on this score.
“You have been shown the support for Sola Scriptura dozen of times.”
There is no support for it. There’s not one verse that mentions it, outlines it, suggests it. Not one. It is thus, self-refuting.
“It’s one of the oldest principles in the book.”
Except no one can find it in the book when asked. Again, there’s not one verse that mentions it, outlines it, suggests it. Not one. It is thus, self-refuting.
“papacy for the bishop of Rome”
Your opinions on the papacy are as uninteresting to me as your unproductive chest beating for sola scriptura.
“liars such as Cardinal Newman”
Your false accusation is hilarious if you look at the link on my profile page.
“Sorry, but you lose, again.”
Has not happened once yet, and it won’t. You never lose when you always side with the truth, and I do.
“You will continue to lose on this score.”
No, I already one. Here, I’ll show you an example of how easy that is: Post for me the verse that shows us that Matthew’s gospel was written by Matthew, is inspired, and belongs in the canon. I already know there is no such verse. There never has been. This means sola scriptura can’t work, doesn’t work.