The earliest Christians (throughout the AD 30-70 mediterranean) honored the 12 apostles as the known authoriies of the church at large, heading up of all Christendom.
We can analyze these 11 arguments:
This is relevant becase if they headed up all of Christendom, then all the more they headed up the 1st and most widely-know church: the Jerusalem church.
Virtually all early Christians trace back their conversion heritage to the 12 themselves (i.e. being converted directly by them, or being converted by someone was converted by them, or by someone who was converted by someone who was converted by them etc.). This is relevant assuming that, like most ancients, Christian converts tended to take as teachers/authorities those who converted them (e.g. 1 Cor 1:12 “each one of you is saying,’“I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’…”). And when those converts themselves won new converts, those new converts would likewise look back with respect to the original teacher/authority. So insofar as Christians all traced their heritage back to the apostles, all would look back at the apostles as being their authoritative teachers.
Paul repeatedly visited the Jerusalem church on the very assumption of his and the daughter churches that it was where the apostles lead and taught. When he went, and never learned otherwise; instead, his letters confirm it was the natural home of the apostles (even if they happened to away on missions etc.).
The book of Acts is a history of the early church, and it repeatedly assumes throughout that the apostles were the founders and leaders of the 1st church there in Jerusalem; they did not disappear.
Consider these 8 arguments
This is relevant if the book of Acts relays witness testimony/memory.
But no, Plausibly…