Lawyerskeptic said
Acts 1:13 lists eleven disciples, but seven of them are never mentioned again. Andrew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James disappear from Scripture. Mormon history provides an interesting parallel for these disappearing disciples. Six of Joseph Smith’s original witnesses – the ones who signed the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses at the beginning of every Book of Mormon– were excommunicated and/or joined splinter groups. Mormons downplay these defections, and – like the seven missing disciples – the six apostates disappear from Mormon histories. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Our Heritage 32, 36, 66 (1996).

 Might the seven missing disciples have left the Christian church and/or formed splinter groups? Could they have been some of the false prophets denounced by Paul? There is no evidence to support such speculation, but then there is no evidence to support anything else about their post-crucifixion careers.  

Law:

I’m really not sure what the heck tgeorgescu is trying to say, but I think there may be something to your suspicion. It’s reasonable to think that many of the original disciples (7 out of 12) may have remained Jewish as opposed to Pauline Christians. It seems the split got rather heated ( I think John of Patmos may have been one of these Jewish Christians)  with charges of false prophets or deliberate attempts to mislead. People who followed Jewish customs and considered them sacre would certainly be scandalized to hear a fellow Jew dismissing them as insignificant. 

tgeorgescu said
What I was pointing at was that there is not enough evidence in order to make the call. Ehrman stated in a blog post that there was evidence of doubt among the Apostles, but the rest is guessiology.  

And you realize that that was sort of the point, right?

tgeorgescu said

If it can be neither confirmed nor rejected through evidence, it is “not even wrong”.  

Is that what the post was about or was it about speculation based on the lack of history? 

I don’t see anything in the OP about confirming or rejecting the idea:

 

“Might the seven missing disciples have left the Christian church and/or formed splinter groups? Could they have been some of the false prophets denounced by Paul?” 

That’s what we refer to as a hypothetical;something substantially different from  evidentiary processes. The question is quite good considering that it’s hard to believe that 7 out of 12 disciples would simply disappear if they had remained members. Considering that the book of Acts is supposed to be a history of the movement, the absence of more than half of Jesus inner circle is rather odd. Further, the Matthew in question is the same Matthew the church identifies as the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Also, Thomas, the very man who verified for everyone that Jesus was resurrected by putting his fingers in the wounds etc.Thus while we might account for the absence of the others by suggesting the lackluster achievements, certainly Matthew and Thomas would not be counted among them. Moreover, we are told that the apostles received the ability to do miracles in Jesus name so I can’t see how they would then have unimpressive achievements. Add to that the gifts of the holy spirit and it’s really hard to understand why they go unmentioned.

If those men remained committed disciples, it wouldn’t be surprising that the apparent split between Paul and the Judaizers would claim men who grew up in Jewish culture, who revered jewish traditions etc 

Tempo1936 said
New to this site but find it very user friendly and informative.  I learn something new every time I logon. 

Is there any easy way to go back to the beginning of the discussion and blog?  I’m interested in learning more about Paul’s life and letters.

when I put in “Paul” as a search term I’m taken to the last posting.  I would like to read from the very beginning.    

Have you checked the archive?