[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.

[annalex]

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

I am saying that 2 Timothy 3 cannot be properly understood until we read 2 Timothy 1 and 2 Timothy 2. Which is the case with any book, by the way: you read it from the beginning.

The consecration of Timothy is here:

6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

(2 Timothy 1)

The instruction to pass on the teaching authority to others is here:

2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

(2 Timothy 2)

The specific instruction to ordain certain men is in the previous letter:

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, [...]

8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

(1 Timothy 2)

19 Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.

[...]

22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man

(1 Timothy 5)

The fact that not every time a figure of authority is described in the scripture, his consecration is also mentioned, shows nothing. The fact that not every laying of hands describes the sacrament of Holy Orders does not deprecate the context shown above, where it is.

*** My overall advice is not to read the scripture until you can get a good spiritual advisor, Catholic or Orthodox. Without instruction grounded in the tradition of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) your reading is very likely to lead you away from the truth. I will be happy to help you along (I am Catholic) but I am but a layman and my time is limited.