“”Those who follow in the footsteps of the apostles should be listened to as they are in agreement with the teaching of the Christ Jesus....I don’t find that in the Bible and in the early writings of individuals of the churches. It’s that simple!””
That would mean you should listen to Saint Ignatius Of Antioch who was the 3rd Bishop of Antioch and a Disciple Of Saint John.....
A few of his writings...
“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” Saint Ignatius-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
In John's Gospel (at the last supper) IHS tells the 12:
(13:16) ...nor is he who is sent (apostolos) greater than He who sent ( a 'pempo" word) him. ...
(It could be "nor is he who is an apostle greater than He who ...")
(13:20) Whoever receives anyone whom I send receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent (another "pempo"verbal form) me.
Then at the Easter evening upper room appearance He says to the disciples (20:21): As the father has sent (apestalken) me, so I send (pempo) you.
And here's a synoptic parallel:
Matthew 10:40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent (also an 'apostle" word) Me.
The two problems I have with an apostle being known by this standard: First of all, they must teach what Jesus told them to teach. Is that how is the average person to know? Remember the average person has an IQ of 100 and for a very long time couldn't have read a Bible if it were given to him.
And even if he were intelligent and literate AND had the time to study enough to have a strong opinion of what Jesus taught, I bet we could find somebody with the same gifts to the same degree who differed from our first apostle. So this standard begins to sound indistinguishable from "they must be capable of making me agree with their opinion of what Jesus taught."
And the second objection takes into account the dig at 'development'. The written record is sparse, and its interpretation recondite and indeterminate. It's application to varying conditions and cultural developments is vexatious. Not only is there an unfolding in matters of faith and morals, but administrative and logistical challenges arise. Sooner or later, anything from neckties to jewelry, to buttons will be argued by some to be against the teachings of the Lord and of the Bible (though I've never quite understood the problem with buttons.)
So it's hard to see how this can be a useful standard for determining whether someone is an apostle.
In other news, you said:
Pauls ministry to the Gentiles was not made "valid" by the letter (singular) the meeting in Jerusalme sent to the church in Antioch... .
I did not say the letter made his ministry valid. I said it
was known to be valid by the letters the Council sent with him and Barnabas and Judas and Silas.
Paul himself says he went up to Jerusalem to see if he had been running in vain.