[PugetSoundSoldier]

Paul was indeed an apostle. He was not one of the original twelve.

I'm sorry, I know this is a long thread, and you may have missed the fundamental claim I was addressing in post 357 where it is stated:

The concept of Primacy is rooted in the Gospels, for example, in MT: 16:16-19 we see Christ only speaking to the Apostles (e.g. The Twelve) as the parallel texts support (c.f. Mark 8: 27-30; Luke 9:18-21). Every Christian does not have the power to “bind and loose”. This was given only to the Apostles.

Clearly the example of Paul breaks that statement, as the Apostles - as defined in post 357 - are the Twelve original disciples of Christ. And we also see that the power to "bind and loose" is given to Paul, not one of the Twelve.

[Petronski]

...the Apostles - as defined in post 357...

This is a fine example of the game of gotcha I refused to play.

Do you really believe the Apostles are defined in post 357, or are you trying to win forensic points in some kind of Great Gospel Joust-Off?

[papertyger]

Clearly the example of Paul breaks that statement, as the Apostles - as defined in post 357 - are the Twelve original disciples of Christ.

No, it doesn't. Paul claims apostolic authority in 1Cor9:1. The problem here is your extra-biblical definition of "apostle," not a lack of supporting scripture.

And we also see that the power to "bind and loose" is given to Paul, not one of the Twelve.

How do we know that?