[ZNPaaneah]

Let me see if I can understand this discussion:

Igzy is saying that "The 12 Apostles" are no longer on the Earth and the Bible is complete. We are no longer writing scripture.

I think everyone agrees with that.

Ohio is saying that God gave gifts to man, and one of those gifts was apostleship, and that these gifts were given to perfect man. I think we can all agree with that.

Igzy is saying that this teaching of Apostleship has caused all kinds of harm throughout the church age, WL is only one example, there are others equally heinous. I think we can all agree with that.

Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.

I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives.

Igzy is arguing that the definition for apostle is far too vague. This is where I would say that you have to make a distinction between "the" apostles and "an" apostle.

Personally I have seen miracles done, so I certainly don't think that is a valid basis to argue that we don't have apostles anymore.

Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says.

Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.