I apologise if I insulted you Major, thank you for taking it kindly.
I disagree that you answered Sue, but that is not the purpose of this post
From the very beginning of the thread you have adamantly insisted that the criteria of apostleship was exclusively defined by Peter. I think most people would accept that criteria,
but only for the selection of Matthias.
And of course Paul's subsequent commission completely denies Peter's criteria, but again I don't want to address that debate as it has been beaten to death and it will not change your stance.
So just to be clear on my own position, as far as I am concerned Euphemia has so far consistently stated the correct and clear biblical understanding of apostles and apostleship.
The following Strongs definition of apostle is taken from biblehub.com
I previously stated that any additional meaning for
apostolos would have to be gained from the specific context, such as the one you keep insisting on for the replacement for Judas. I also stated that any additional criteria would have to be left behind when the word is exported to other situations such as Paul's. That latter fact is clearly proven in the book of Acts.
That brings me to the following.
Anyone who is an apostle can only be so because he has been sent, and that is the meaning of the word apostle. All the additional nonsense is added fluff that cannot alter the actual Greek meaning.
To demonstrate this.
2These are the names of the twelve apostles (Apostolos, one who is sent away, ie. emissary, or missionary) : first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
.................................................etc. etc....
16“I am sending (Apostello, sending away)you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
Within this scripture, we see the one who is sent, we also see the action of the one sending him, we also see the one who does the sending.
It also shows that if someone is sending (Apostello), then the one who is sent must be the Apostolos or emissary or missionary or apostle of that specific sender.
Thus if God sends someone to do something, whether scripture calls him an apostle or not, that sending or apostello from God automatically makes the messenger an apostle of God.
John1v6 There was a man sent (Apostello) from God whose name was John.
Thus, even though he is never named as such, John the Baptist is an apostle because he was sent by God.
Mark13v41The Son of Man will send out (Apostello) his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
So even angels can be apostles, or sent ones.
So that's the maths, or grammar. To deny that is just daft.
Bluntly, the word apostle has to be defined by the context, and that context can vary. Thus God can send anyone to do anything he chooses.
The real issue is who is doing the sending. In claiming that there are absolutely no more apostles, you are saying that God no longer sends anyone to do anything.
This means that none of your Baptist ministers have any mandate whatsoever from God, and obviously it means the same for all other workers of the church. If God is no longer sending, then they are all just ministers of the flesh, building wood hay and stubble.