The Apostles were a select group of only 14 men: the original 12 less Judas plus Matthias, and then Paul. These men were not given the authority, mandate, or instruction to pass on their office to anyone else. When the last Apostle, John, died there were never any more apostles. There is no such thing as an "apostolic succession". The priests of the catholic cult did not inherit the Apostles' authority or commission. Every member of the Church has the same power and authority to "bind and loose" that the Apostles did (Matt 28:19-20).
The concept of the "catholic" church did not come about until the mid third century. They have since backdated their religion in order to make it seem older, but Christ did not establish the catholic church/cult. Peter was NOT the first pope. The first time the word pope was used was in the late third century. The very concept of a separate "priesthood" is foreign to the NT. ALL Christ followers are part of the priesthood to God.
As for 2 Tim 3:16, it says that all Scripture is inspired by God. This means that it is authored by God, literally placed within the mind of the writers by God. This means that there is no error, contradiction, mistake, or conflict within Scripture: OT as well as NT.
The OT had been accepted as Scripture for hundreds of years before Christ, and Jesus gave credibility to the OT Scriptures by quoting from them.
The NT Scriptures are not catholic. The vast majority of them were accepted within the Church within the first century. Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). Paul recognized Luke's writings as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18). The counsels where you think the Scripture was "established" did not "establish" anything; they simply recognized what had already been accepted for quite a while. They did exclude some writings that some groups wanted to include, because they had reason to doubt the validity of it. Examples of these would be the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary, the epistle of Barnabas, and many others.
You have clearly never studied the early church of the apostles.
Study it.
All your assumptions are false.
And as you confirm 2 Tim says nothing about sola scriptura,
Indeed scripture identifies sources of truth outside itself.
So sola scriptura is neither historically, scripturally or logically true,
It is also why all Protestabts disagree with each other on all the basics .
Calvin didn’t agree with luther or Zwingli.
Calvinists do not believe what calvin did , Lutherans do not agree with Luther!
So sola scriptura doesn’t work. To quote Luther in despair of the monster he created he said “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine”
The problem is if you only have tge words of scripture not the meaning you do not have the word of God.
Catholics believe the true church comprising scripture, and meaning provide by authority of councils and tradition handed down from the first.
Protestants only believe in their own arrogance combined with scripture, and schism if anyone disagrees,
Yet they are told not to “ lean on their own understanding” by scripture but to listen to those who were “sent”.
You don’t.
Here is an example of tradition, the faith handed down.
eg what John meant when he echoed Jesus words in John 6 , we know because he passed it to his disciples in succession.
So read ignatius to smyrneans who tells you what John taught him. The first generation of succession
A Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession .
So that is what John 6 means.
And as Paul says “ stay true to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter”
Without tradition and authority you only have words , not the word of God
Catholics have the true faith, handed down from the start, as traditon , with the sources of authority Jesus gav3 to bind and loose. As Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.
For the first time, study the early church and what it believed. You clearly don’t know.
