You said there was no apostolic succession to St. Paul, and I showed you where it is in Galatians. Yes, Paul had preached before he was consecrated by "flesh and blood", -- but after Christ Himself sent him.
Yes, Paul had preached before he was consecrated by "flesh and blood", -- but after Christ Himself sent him. So then apostolic succession is "after the fact"? Someone just declares themself to be a Cardinal and everyone nod their head three years later? Is that how it works?
Lest you think this is limited to Paul, Apollos did exactly the same thing...
Act 18:24-28 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Seems the only qualification Apollos had was that he understood the scriptures, not the oral views of the Jerusalem Council. He was just a little confused in his theology and was corrected (again, not by the head of the church but by laypeople).