Did you post a verse that shows sola scriptura or not? It’s a simple question.
Such sophistry is indicative of insolence or guile, if not ignorance, in lieu of an actual argument. For I explained that SS itself does not mean a Truth is established upon one explicit verse (which includes the Trinity), and SS is established upon the clear testimony of a multitude verses showing the only substantive body of Divine revelation that is affirmed as wholly inspired word of God is Scripture, (2 Tim. 3:16)
And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26) Therefore it was Scripture that the Lord Himself invoked, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and which He opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.). And to which even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)
For as is abundantly evidenced by a multitude of Scripture texts, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and established Word of God.
And while as said, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, to which Catholics vainly appeal to in attempting to support their oral tradition, yet popes and ecumenical councils do not speak or write as wholly inspired of God in declaring what the word of God is.
Therefore it is not just one verse but many that establishes Scripture as alone being supreme,
Which as said, means that you can only object to the sufficiency aspect of SS as not providing all "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." However, God has always provided that, from the garden of Eden onward, yet He gives more grace. And here you could argue that Scripture does not provide all that God wants souls to know. However, the sufficiency of Scripture is not to be restricted to what it formally or explicitly provides, but it must include that which is materially provides, from reasoning and the illumination of the Spirit by which truths may be "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" including with "a due use of the ordinary means," to "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith... (Westminster Confession of Faith)
Thus rather than one verse substantiating the whole of SS, it is based upon the collective weight of many, despite your vain attempt to create a strawman of SS in demanding one verse that establishes it all, while not restricting Catholic attempts to one verse when they are arguing for something being Scriptural. If we look at what Catholics resort to when trying to argue that that such things as praying to created beings in Heaven are Scriptural the we see that they do not expect all doctrines to be established upon one verse, unless they are being duplicitous.
Well; your own, very first pope wrote:
2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need
for a godly life through our knowledge of him
who called us by his own glory and goodness.
This doesn't leave much room for
the other stuff that Rome has added.