1. Gal.1:14. Refers to JEWISH TRADITION of the Jewish regulations handed down by the rabbis that ruled his life as a member of the Pharisees (Phil.3:5). BEFORE HE FOUND CHRIST.
2. Col. 2:8. Speaking of deceptive doctrines that false teachers were trying to introduce into the church in Colosse: Jewish legalism and Greek philosophy. Paul warned the Colossians that the result of following the traditions of men is spiritual slavery.
The remaining three references by Paul to tradition refer to the teaching of Paul.
1. 1 Cor. 11:2. Paul praises the Corinthians for CONTINUING to practice that which he had previously HANDED DOWN by his oral teaching.
2. 2 Thess. 2:15. The truths he had received by revelation from the Lord and had HANDED DOWN to the church in Thessalonica.
2 Thess.3:6. What he had HANDED DOWN while he was with them.
All of these demonstrate that Paul HANDED DOWN the Christian faith to the early church not only by his letters but also by his oral teaching and example. To know the content of Paul's oral teaching, we need not invent a second font of revelation such as Roman Catholic Tradition. Paul's 13 epistles provide and INSPIRED TRANSCRIPT of WHAT GOD REVEALED to PAUL and he PASSED ON TO THE EARLY CHURCH. -The Gospel According to ROme. James G. McCarthy "New Testament References to Tradition", pp343,344.
Now, what are you going to do with 2 Pet. 3:15,16?
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking IN THEM OF THESE THINGS; IN WHICH are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.
Are you saying that your first Pope was wrong in calling Paul's epistles SCRIPTURE? Or did Peter live until the late 300's so he could write this in order that Paul's epistles be considered SCRIPTURE? Or does the RCC simply think she has ALL the answers and if SHE didn't write it, or put it together, then it wasn't done? Do you believe that people were so stupid that they had to wait until the 300's to understand? If I had lived in 66 AD and had read this epistle from Peter, I would have understood what Chapter 3, verse 16 meant. That Paul's writings were considered Scripture, as the OTHER SCRIPTURES were. ANd that's from your first "pope's" mouth.
Same quewstion that your cohort refuses to answer, was the Epistle of Barnabas "Scripture", The Gospel of Peter, the Didache?