No, but I'd definitely say one of the "requirements" to be an Apostle as named in Scripture, is to be named an Apostle in Scripture, though.Me4Him said:
The oft mis-cited 'proof-text' for what you, no doubt, are attempting to show is I Cor. 9:1ff. This verse does not say Paul was an Apostle, because he had seen the Lord, any more than does I Cor. 15:6 say that there were 500 apostles, that saw Jesus, here and that was only part of the 'total' number of apostles, based on what I Cor. 15:7, says with the use of the phrase "all the Apostles." This is faulty exegesis, at best (and bad eisegesis, at worst), IMO.
It would seem very unlikely that Epaphroditus was around to see the Lord after his resurrection, yet he is called an apostle, as I have previously indicated. One example is enough to contradict the 'all or nothing' idea, that is here lying just beneath the surface.
Paul asks 4 "stand alone" questions (all of which expect an answer of "Yes!") in I Cor. 9:1, as he amasses the evidence, where for two complete chapters, he is 'defending' his ministry and what he practices. (I Cor. 8:1- 9:27) One of these questions is not dependant on another, for its answer, here. However, as he puts them together, Paul is using this to 'vindcate' his apostleship, as it were. (v.2)
No Paul did not say he was the last. However, on the chronological list he gives here, he is the last in order. And he is probably the last, up to this time. However, it should be obvious that one cannot take this in an absolute sense, for John would see the Lord some 30-40 years later than this letter when he was exiled on Patmos. Again, ditto to the "all or nothing" idea, here.
And I'm also pretty sure God, the Holy Spirit, knew all about what would later transpire, :thumbs: and hence did not make any contradiction, when He inspired Paul to pen the words in I Cor. 15, as well.
Ed