[ZNPaaneah]

I could be mistaken but I think that what Ohio is referring to as "Apostles" today, those that don't use this term refer to as "Missionaries". Now I understand the desire to distinguish between "the apostles" by using a different term even if you are referring to essentially the same gift. I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding. Also, because of the damage done by false "apostles" and false "Christs" I think I actually prefer the term missionary. Personally on my resume and in job interviews I always referred to my time in Taiwan as being a missionary.

On the other hand, I think that someone as knowledgeable as Igzy, not just of the NT but also of the teachings in the LRC should be prudent in discussing this issue. After reading all of the posts from both sides all of Igzy's arguments seemed reasonable arguments for why Christians would use a term like missionary instead of apostle. None of them seemed like scriptural evidence that the NT presents two classes of apostles. I think had an extra sentence or two been used in the initial post it could have avoided a long and contentious thread.

Now I hope that all reading this post will exercise Christian charity to not actually look at my posts and scream hypocrite. I am well aware that this is advice I should follow.