1) I didn’t say the Scriptures aren’t from God. Thanks to their Divine Author, their historical chain of transmission is through His Church.
2) You have neglected to distinguish between different kinds of tradition. You will note that the Apostle Paul disparages some kinds of tradition, and praises -— insists upon -— other kinds. (He can’t be disparaging and insisting upon the same thing, so there must he two kinds.). The kind called Sacred Tradition has exactly the same origin (the teaching of Our Lord and of His Apostles) whether it is conveyed by preaching , or teaching, or example, or the texts of letters and Gospels.
3) St Paul taught exactly that: that Sacred Tradition has the same authority whether oral or written:
(2 These 2:15)
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Either you, or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken.
Neither I nor the Apostle Paul are mistaken. If any teaching given to them was not included in the limits of Holy Writings, they are gone. And none since is given Holy Speech not already a part of Scripture.
Your desire to apply that citation today is not a genuine interpretation. Trying to break the Word with tradition is exactly what the Pharisees tried to do in Jesus' day, and is still being attempted.
.
Here is the problem with your idea of the “traditions:”
Judging by the Acts, and the epistles, the traditions that were taught were the ones that were recorded in Tanakh.
There is no recorded evidence for any other “traditions.”
.
Which avails you nothing as a polemic for submitting to Rome, since
1. if being the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture means such are the infallible authorities who must be submitted to then you invalidate the NT church.
2. The church that wrote and gave us the Scriptures stands in contrast to that of Rome, being contrary to it as regards Cath distinctives.
2) You have neglected to distinguish between different kinds of tradition.
Which is what Catholics typically do in charging us with rejecting tradition.
The kind called Sacred Tradition has exactly the same origin (the teaching of Our Lord and of His Apostles) whether it is conveyed by preaching , or teaching, or example, or the texts of letters and Gospels. 3) St Paul taught exactly that: that Sacred Tradition has the same authority whether oral or written: (2 These 2:15) “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Which also avails you nothing as a polemic that what Paul referred to was a vast body of the oral word of God that was never written, but out of which Rome can enjoin obedience, even to something 1700+ years after it allegedly occurred.
And which was so lacking in support from early tradition - where it ought to be manifest - that Rome's own scholars opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine.
For the reality is that,
1. SS preachers themselves enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the condition that it is Scriptural.
2. The apostles sometimes could speaks and write as wholly inspired of God, including in passing on truths found in tradition as well as new public revelation, and as wholly inspired of God we know it is true and the word of God.
In contrast, the so-called apostolic successors of Rome do not speak as wholly inspired of God - which is far more powerful then statements that are simply true (Heb. 4:12) do not speak as wholly inspired of God, while their claim that their office is perpetually protected from error (infallible) is a novel unScriptural presumption which no magisterial office in Scripture was ever promised.
Nor do they claim to provide new public revelation. Thus apostles enjoining obedience to wholly inspired preaching is not the same thing as what Rome imagines it is doing, and cannot even claim to be equal with Scripture. .
4. The veracity of Scripture was never subject to testing by oral preaching, but instead the opposite is exampled and affirmed by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 17:11) Thus Scripture has the supreme authority.
5. Writing is God's manifest means of preservation, as shown in a post here by the grace of God. It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, nor how the Lord rebuked the devil and errant leadership, and established His prophetic mission to the disciples, and opened their minds to, and told Timothy was the instrumental means of being equipped, but the wholly inspired-of-God written word. The very doctrine Paul told Timothy to hold to was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thanks be to God.
6. As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
7. There is no proof that the oral preaching of the apostles was not subsequently written down. whereas it is evidenced that anything called the word of God/the Lord usually was, directly or subsequently.
Therefore, in making what uninspired men of Rome say to be equal with the wholly inspired oral preaching of men as the apostles, and Scripture, and as including such unScriptural traditions as praying to saints etc., then either you or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken. Take your pick carefully.