[annalex]

2 Timothy 3:16 is a verse that is commonly misunderstood to support sola scriptura. If one reads the preceding chapters, one discovers that it actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.

(Quoting myself again).

[Full Court]

All Scripture is given by God, that's the point, whether you like it or not.

[OLD REGGIE]

2 Timothy 3:16 is a verse that is commonly misunderstood to support sola scriptura. If one reads the preceding chapters, one discovers that it actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.

Are you brazenly quoting 2 Timothy 3: to support Apostolic Succession?

I'm afraid you are required to step outside of Scripture to "prove" that the laying on of hands is necessary for Apostolic Succession.

Matthi'as was "enrolled" as the successor of Judas and there is no indication of the "laying on of hands" in this "ordination".

Paul was appointed by Jesus and we know there was no "laying on of hands".

The practice of "laying on of hands" frequently had nothing to do with Ordination or Apostolic Succession.

One can only assume that the practice of ordination in the "Apostolic" Churches is based on "Tradition", not Scripture. Is my assumption correct? If you believe I am mistaken you must show Apostolic Succession from Scripture which involves your "magic" "laying on of hands". Remember, we do have examples of Apostles being "appointed" or "enrolled" in Scripture.