MODERN DAY HUMAN MINISTRY ARE NOT THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES

 By OUTCAST

 Paul was the agent of Yeshua. He appointed Saul called Paul on the road to Damascus.

Paul did not assign anyone to be his agent. None of those "agents of Yeshua" appointed anyone to their their place. Man made that decision - and "the church" became wherever two or more followers of the teaching of the agents of Yeshua would gather and speak of the teachings they were given. Nobody was an agent after that - and therefor, no further texts could be added to scripture.

"As direct witnesses and messengers of the risen Lord, the apostles can have no successors…Apostleship in the sense of the original and fundamental ministry of the first witnesses and messengers died out with the death of the last apostle."

So, the Romans chose to make their own.

https://www.andrewcorbett.net/church-history/02second-century-church-history/

How could these errors be refuted by the early Church? The apostles had been the guardians of the truth and sound doctrine. But with their passing and the emergence of the second century, how could the Church truly know what was sound apostolic teaching? Ignatius (who lived toward the end of the first century and was martyred early in the second century [6] ) was the third bishop of Antioch. He was the first to suggest that the local bishop be regarded as the rightful source of sound doctrine.

Ignatius of Antioch sought to answer the problem of centrifugal movements by insisting upon the local bishop as the focus of unity; without him the lifegiving sacraments could not be administered. He gave this, so to speak, a vertical justification by claiming that the bishop is God’s representative on earth, an earthly counterpart corresponding to the heavenly Monarch, so that ‘we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself’. [7]

These comments came after Clement (30 – 100), one of the bishops of Rome, had written to the church at Corinth, in 96 AD, [8] and urged them to submit to their bishop. [9] Thus, it seems that the position of bishop initially changed in prominence for all good intentions. If bishops could be seen and promoted as the authorized teachers of apostolic doctrine, then the Church stood a better chance of repelling heresies, and perhaps more importantly maintaining unity.

But in striving to maintain sound doctrine and unity, the role of the bishop changed from its original concept of an elder/overseer. In the absence of the first century apostles, who formed the critical function in the leadership structure of the Primitive Church, the second century Church was now void of this vital functional leadership. The Church has always been reluctant to foist the title apostle on anyone other than those mentioned in the New Testament. But it will be seen that the leadership structure of the early New Testament Church was more than a foundational structure: it was a divinely ordered, prescriptive leadership structure. Consequently, when the first century apostles died, there arose a need to fill the void. And it was the bishops of the churches that organized themselves to fill the void.

Then, in the third century, the Roman church chose to change Yeshua as also being Yahweh. It has been a downhill slide ever since.