Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Igzy>”Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.”
Igzy,
Your argument that Paul was the last apostle has no scriptural basis
First, there were many apostles that came after Paul became an apostle as Evangelical also identified.
Furthermore, Paul did not insinuate he was the last, he said he was the least.
|
I agree with you based on my understanding of apostle, but not based on Igzy's definition that the apostle's were the ones with the authority to write scripture. Paul said he was called to "complete the word". Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture. Therefore I would argue that there is a scriptural basis to say that the NT is complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.
Drake
|
I also agree with this. However, I would also agree with Igzy that there is a scriptural basis to say that there are no apostles henceforth with the authority to add to or to take away from the NT. That is essentially given to us in the conclusion of the NT in the book of Revelation.