Thank you for your kind reply. I am enjoying your posts as well!
I tend to lean toward the fact that the Bible is not a life history of each of it's players. So I start with finding the basic rules for an event, such as becoming an Apostle, then applying those rules to all the players even though it might not even have been written down.
I can appreciate that, I really can. I see the structures and mechanisms too. But I have found a need to be very cautious of extrapolation, so you might forgive me if I am not quite where you are (albeit that I am close by). My difference from you is in the criteria: What one may think is the ruleset governing 'becoming an apostle' is offset by the errata - Perhaps the exception to the rule proves the rule, but I must be convinced of that, lest a deeper thing, one that the 'appearance' is not privy to, is missed altogether.
That is not to say that I can school you here - I don't know. But to me, the Word must be in perfect harmony. Not only OT vs NT (two witnesses), but also those structures and mechanisms I referred to previously - The Gifts of YHWH are without repentance, so every_single_thing set forth from the beginning must be carried forward.
Apostleship, as a mechanism or object, is an odd thing... A seemingly new thing... That newness piques my interest, and is something I don't know how to map exactly. So I dare say the 'rules' may not be all that evident.
[roamer_1:] A difficult proposition, as there is no definitive record (as would be as necessary here as in the pedigree of kings).
Good point. I see this as God's responsibility and not mine =).
To be sure - but that leaves us with an elusive quarry: If succession is a thing to be minded, then it must be apparent, or at least obtainable in some means of proof, lest we have no recourse against pretenders (such as the Roman church). Bear in mind that I am not against your primary premise, but as a hallmark of authority (we must listen because of some line of spiritual fore-bearers), it is left without it's visceral part. Ergo, while 'laying on of hands', or the 'passing of the office' may be necessary, it is not necessarily discernible. Therefore, the power of YHWH inherent through ANY man, must stand or fall upon the singular display of that power by that man, and to our eyes, any succession would be irrelevant anyhoo. YES?
Thinking outside the box for a second, : [... Malachi 4:] Doesn't this prove that past prophets will visit man before the second coming? So, couldn't passed Apostles visit also if God wanted them to, to bring the Apostleship back I mean?
Perhaps... All things are possible in YHWH. But this would needfully fall in the same category as skittle-poopin' unicorns without a sure prediction evident in the Word. There is no such passage predicting any return of any apostle...
However, It is possible that something close could happen, as represented in another man:
2Ki_2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.
But if we believe Yeshua, Elijah has already come (Mat 11:12-15), and no one noticed or understood (at least collectively)... Should we be graced with such a thing in our time, I think it would be hard to see through today's religiosity. I wonder if Christians can recognize the two witnesses predicted at the end of the age, or any other coming as a true agent. If the history recounted in the Word is any indication, most will not even notice.
since the Apostles themselves were also prophets, as they prophesied and spoke directly to God, I would guess they are handled much the same as the "Prophets".
Probably right, but not explicitly declared: So again, I must be careful with such a thing.
[roamer_1:] Then the point seems to be necessarily moot, as there is nary a record to support a pedigree of any kind.
Ahhh... but we have a record. We have a record of the action of the Lord during that time which tells us who He considered to have Apostolic and Prophetic authority.
Remember the Lord spoke to John the Revelator on the island of Patmos in 70AD. Where John recorded the Book of Revelation. Paul also was prophesying and talking with the Lord up till the time of his death in 67AD. Which is same time period the Catholics claim Linus succeeded Peter. (or Clement I depending on who you talk to)
Neither Linus or Clement ever spoke to God nor received any prophesies. I think the record of the actions of God are clear.
This doesn't address your exact point, but I think it represents a record of who doesn't have the Apostolic succession. Which is also useful.
That must be true, without a doubt! And it returns me to my point above = The actual indicator of any agent of YHWH must be the power of YHWH resting in that man, and not in any succession. Therein is the only mark of authority. Was there a spiritual succession that installed the 'spirit of Elijah' upon John the Immerser? Was there a laying-on of hands? A passing of the mantle down through ages? Perhaps there was, but if so, it is obscure. The efficacious mechanism of his office (as an observable thing) must be contained within his person... And that alone must be the mark of authority.