No argument there whatsoever. You cited 2 Timothy 3:16–17 where Paul is laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. In 2 Tim. 3:14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you haveheard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2).
As one who believes scripture to be inspired, then you also accept Paul's admonition to follow oral tradition.
Mostly exhortations to continue with the scriptures already written.
Of course in those days when God was inspiring the writers of the NT, it wasn't written down yet. Although of course lots of letters from Paul were.
So naturally they were taught back then to follow the words of those that God was inspiring to speak what would eventually become the NT, which we have now.
It does not substantiate the traditions of the Catholic church as being as important as scripture.
Paul was NOT telling us to follow the traditions of the Catholic church in this day and age.
I have no problem if you want to, it's your choice.
Oh and Timothy was a disciple [Acts 16:1], not a Bishop.
But according to later tradition, Paul consecrated Timothy as bishop of Ephesus in the year 65
About 15 years later apparently he died a martyrs death, being stoned to death by pagans.
Interesting that he was trying to stop a a pagan procession of idols, ceremonies, and songs
Kind of like today trying to stop a homosexual parade marching through our cites so much these days.
I'll bet they would like to kill us if we tried to stop those.