How is Verification of Apostles done today?

100%

If there are no apostles today how is authority passed down?

Most of the Christian world says through apostolic secession.

Exactly, there is no authority for the Christian Church. Catholocism . . . now that's a different story.

And most of the world would be incorrect. As we can see in Scripture, the apostles were unique in every way. But they understood that they would pass on (sooner than later). So they commanded their companions to appoint elders in every city. And every local church would have a body of elders (also called pastors and bishops interchangeably) within the presbytery (presbyter = presbuteros = elder). There would be no hierarchy of any kind outside the local church. And this pattern would have continued has everyone simply given heed to what the apostles has taught.

You should probably study early Christianity a lot more. Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome actually lived during the apostolic age and one of them is in the New Testament. Both disagree with you. Both of them are infinitely more credible about the early Christian Church than your 21st century interpretation is.

Seems like a bullseye to me. This is what all of my Bibles point to IMO.

Simple. There are non in the same since as those 12 Jesus ordained.
Any one who claims otherwise is a liar.

So Paul wasn’t an Apostle? Mathias wasn’t an Apostle?

Informative read on Watchman Nee.
Nee refused, however, to follow [the Exclusive Brethren] practice of isolating themselves from other Christians and rejected their ban on celebrating The Lord's Supper with other Christians. Matters came to a head when Exclusive Brethren leaders learned that during [Watchman Nee's] 1933 visits to the United Kingdom and the United States Nee had broken bread with Honor Oak Christian Fellowship associated with the independent ministry of T. Austin-Sparks and with non-Brethren missionaries who Nee had known in China. After a series of communications Nee received a letter dated 31 August 1935, signed by leading Brethren, severing fellowship with him and his movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchman_Nee

You can go into the public square and preach from the bible and hand out bible tracts?

From the article(Wikipedia).. you quoted,
"Nee had a unique blend of Brethren theology, the exchanged
life theology of the Keswick conventions and.."
----
If you research/read Nee's books, Brethren theology & Keswick conventions..
- You understand..why the article says,
- "Nee had a unique blend of Brethren theology, the exchanged
life theology of the Keswick conventions and.."

He had been exposed to some Brethren theology, is that bad? If so how bad?

Did I say it is 'bad'?
--
I like Brethren history & appreciate some points of Brethren theology.

Nee's ideas about ecclesiology--elders at least-- and church meetings were similar to Brethren ideas--returning to the scriptures.

Lee sounds like a very confused person to me.

What is Lee's Theology on the Trinity?

"
Witness Lee’s Trinitarian Orthodoxy A particularly concise yet substantial statement of Witness Lee’s Trinitarian orthodoxy can be found in Lesson 2, “The Triune God,” in volume one of Truth Lessons,6 a series he developed for teaching biblical truth to new believers. Referring to a number of verses, including 1 Corinthians 8:4 and Isaiah 45:5, Witness Lee emphasizes that God is one. Yet he points out that there are intimations of plurality in God in the Old Testament, as in Genesis 1:26 and Isaiah 6:8, where the plural pronouns “Our” and “Us” are used in reference to Him. The plurality is more specifically revealed by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 28:19, where He charges the disciples to go forth and make disciples of all the nations, “baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The singular name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indicates not only plurality but, more specifically, triunity in God, as Witness Lee explains:
Following his affirmation of the triunity of God, Witness Lee demonstrates that there are eternal distinctions among the Father, Son, and Spirit. First, each is said to be God, as, for example, in 1 Peter 1:2, which speaks of “God the Father”; Hebrews 1:8, which applies Psalm 45 to the Son, saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”; and Acts 5:3-4, where Peter confronts Ananias for deceiving the Holy Spirit and thereby not lying to men but to God. Furthermore, Witness Lee affirms that each of the three is eternal, as in Isaiah 9:6, which identifies the “eternal Father”; Hebrews 7:3, where the Son of God, typified by Melchisedec, is without “beginning of days nor end of life”; and Hebrews 9:14, which says that Christ offered Himself to God “through the eternal Spirit.” In his teaching Witness Lee recognized a strong testimony of distinction among the Father, Son, and Spirit in their each being God and each being eternal, a testimony that speaks also to their simultaneous, eternal coexistence. In Truth Lessons Witness Lee further focuses on three portions in the New Testament that reveal the simultaneous coexistence of, and therefore the distinctions among, the three, which forbids their being successive modes of an undifferentiated monadic deity. One passage he cites is Ephesians 3:14-17, the apostle Paul’s prayer for the believers to experience the Triune God. Of these verses Witness Lee writes, “This portion of the Word shows that the Father hears the prayer, the Spirit strengthens the saints, and the Son—Christ—makes His home in our hearts. By this we can also see clearly that all Three coexist simultaneously.”8 He writes further:
By virtue of their eternal coexistence, as Witness Lee recognized, the three hypostases are eternally distinct. Coexistence, however, is only one aspect of their eternal, mutual relationship in the Godhead. The relationship among the three persons of the Divine Trinity, as Witness Lee points out, “is not only that they simultaneously coexist, but, even more, that they indwell one another mutually,”10 or coinhere. This coinherence indicates their inseparable oneness. Relying particularly on the Gospel of John for textual evidence of coinherence, Witness Lee shows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, so that when the Son comes, He comes with the Father (14:10); that the Son and the Spirit come not only from but also with the Father (6:46; 15:26), as indicated by the dual denotations of the Greek preposition para; and that as the Son comes in the Father’s name (5:43), so the Spirit comes in the Son’s name (14:26), indicating that the Son’s coming is likewise the Father’s coming and that the Spirit’s coming is likewise the Son’s coming. Such identifications among the three are possible because all three coinhere and thus are inseparable. Witness Lee writes:

By teaching coexistence and coinherence, Witness Lee affirmed that the three of the Divine Trinity are each fully God, yet he maintained, as the Christian church has long held, that there are not three Gods but one God in three hypostases. Indeed, our God is the Triune God. As should be clear from this brief presentation,12 Witness Lee’s teaching on the Trinity is entirely orthodox. But despite the clear enunciations of Trinitarian orthodoxy found throughout his ministry, some critics have persisted in denouncing him for teaching heresy. The ostensible reason for those charges, as noted earlier, is that those critics recoil at any identifications between the Father, Son, and Spirit for fear that the distinctions among the three are compromised by the identifications. But when Witness Lee made the identifications, he did so with full reliance on the Scriptures and with the orthodox understanding that while the three are eternally distinct, they are never separate, that is, they exist in an eternal relationship of coexistent coinherence. The Charge of Heresy Answered Modalism Defined and Repudiated In the mid-1970s some critics in the countercult community began to accuse Witness Lee of teaching modalism. That charge is still in circulation despite having been answered thoroughly and repeatedly over the years.13 More recently, he has been faulted for saying that God is “one person,” which critics have flaunted as evidence that modalism was indeed at work in his teaching. Witness Lee understood well the heresy of modalism and taught his listeners concerning its errors, but here it may be helpful to turn to Harold O. J. Brown, a respected authority on heresies in the early church, to define the heresy, both historically and theologically, before further demonstrating that Witness Lee’s teaching was not modalistic. According to Brown, the heresy of modalism (or modalistic monarchianism14 ) began with Praxeas, who arrived in Rome at the end of the second century and taught “not merely that Jesus Christ revealed the Father, but that he actually was the Father.”15 Praxeas was followed in Rome and in the teaching of modalism by Noëtus, Epigonus, and Cleomenes. They, like Praxeas, “taught that the Father himself had suffered and died, and then resurrected himself.”16 In other words, these first modalists taught simply that there is one God, the Father, and that Christ is identical to Him, since, allegedly, there is only one person and not a distinction of persons in the Godhead. Consequently, in their zeal to preserve the oneness of God, these teachers forsook the distinct personhood of Christ and, implicitly, of the Spirit, and thus denied the genuine triunity of God. Under Sabellius, who was in Rome in the early third century, the doctrine took on its more developed form, now known as Sabellianism. In this more sophisticated form of the doctrine, Sabellius held that God is “one Person (hypostasis), three names.”17 For Sabellius the names of Father, Son, and Spirit “merely describe different forms of revelation; the Son revealed the Father as a ray reveals the sun. Now the Son has returned to heaven, and God reveals himself as the Holy Spirit.”18 In this teaching the one God reveals Himself in successive stages, or “modes,” of Father, Son, and Spirit in time, but the modes, though genuine manifestations of the one God, are not eternal realities. As in its simpler form, this more developed modalism, while seeking to preserve the oneness of the Trinity, denies the eternal, simultaneous coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit and, therefore, is heretical. In the following excerpt, one of many similar passages in his ministry,19 Witness Lee demonstrates his understanding of modalism and why a modalistic view of the Trinity must be repudiated as heresy:

Coinherence, Incorporation, Economy: Witness Lee’s Basis for Understanding the Mutual Identifications in the Divine Trinity At this point some may wonder, “If Witness Lee taught orthodox Trinitarian doctrine and eschewed the error of modalism, why was he accused of teaching heresy?” The question is legitimate, and we can best begin to answer it more thoroughly by first referring to three verses that Witness Lee made frequent reference to in his ministry:
In these verses the Son is called “Eternal Father”; the last Adam, Christ, is said to have become “a life-giving Spirit”; and the Lord, Christ, is said to be the Spirit. Some expositors have relied on linguistic or interpretive devices to explain away the identifications of the Son with the Father and of Christ with the Spirit in an effort to guard against modalism,21 but Witness Lee did not, choosing instead to affirm the simple declarations of the Bible, though not to understand them simplistically. Rather, he understood that the identifications rely on the oneness of essence in the Divine Trinity and on the coinherence and incorporation of the three persons. Concerning essence, coinherence, and incorporation he writes:
Because the three are an incorporation “by what They are and by what They do,” when one of the three acts distinctly to carry out the divine economy, He incorporates the operations of the other two in His manifest action, so that the Bible frequently identifies one with the other without compromising the eternal distinctions among them. The words of the Lord Jesus in John 14 provide testimony to the reality of incorporation and mutual identification: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works” (v. 10). Here the Son manifestly acts (“the words that I say to you”) and the Father operates distinctly in Him (“the Father who abides in Me does His works”); thus, the Son does not speak from Himself but from the Father who abides in Him. Therefore, the Son could say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (v. 9), because in His distinct and manifest action He incorporated the operations of the Father and thus was identified with the Father. Isaiah, then, could rightly prophesy that the Son would be called “Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6). Nevertheless, the eternal distinction between the Son and the Father is not jeopardized by their mutual identification. Witness Lee writes:
As the Son incorporates the Father and thus can be called “Eternal Father,” so the Spirit incorporates Christ and makes Him real and practical in the living and experience of the believers. It is, therefore, in the realm of the believers’ experience that Christ is said to have become “a life-giving Spirit” and even to be “the Lord Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18), for it is through the Spirit’s incorporation of Christ that Christ comes to the believers to work out the full effect of God’s salvation in them. In other words, a transfer of manifest action occurred in the resurrection of Christ, whereby the Spirit now acts manifestly to bear Christ, whose hidden operations the Spirit incorporates in His manifest activity, to the believers. It is in this experiential and economical sense that Witness Lee understood the various titles of the Spirit that indicate His coinherence with the Father and with the Son, including “the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:9; 1 John 4:2); “the Spirit of your Father” (Matt. 10:20); “the Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:9; 2 Cor. 3:17); “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6); “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11); “the Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7); “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19); and “the Lord Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). The Spirit, therefore, incorporates the operations of the Father and the Son, and He acts to make the Son, the embodiment of the Father, an experiential reality in the believers. Thus, “the Lord,” Paul says, “is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). Witness Lee was not the only Bible teacher to recognize the identifications among the Father, Son, and Spirit or to apply them to the believers’ experience. A number of scholars have written on this matter, but here a few examples will suffice to make the point. Writing in the early twentieth century, the noted Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong, referencing also Charles Gore, offered this remarkably clear description of the identifications in the Godhead based on “the oneness of essence” and the “intercommunion” of the three persons:
"
https://an-open-letter.org/en/ets-2016-the-divine-trinity-in-the-teaching-of-witness-lee/

I will post the controversial statements by lee later for our Local Church Friends to clarify.

Economy and Dispensing of God

me: we are
of the human nature, but covered with the divine. He is the God-man, and we are
the God-men. He is the ark made of wood covered with gold, and we are the
boards made of wood covered with gold. In number we are different, but in
nature we are exactly the same.” — The All-Inclusive Christ, p.103 (1989)
“God can say to His believers, ‘I am divine and human,’ and His believers can
reply, ‘Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and
divine’.” — The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, pp. 51-52 (1990)
“My burden is to show you clearly that God’s economy and plan is to make
Himself man and to make us, His created beings, ‘God,’ so that He is ‘man-ized’
and we are ‘God-ized.’ In the end, He and we, we and He, all become Godmen.”— A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 54 (1990)
“We the believers are begotten of God. What is begotten of man is man, and
what is begotten of God must be God. We are born of God; hence, in this sense,
we are God.” — A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 53 (1990)
“Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ,
we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the
Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be
confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or
confused.” — A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 203-204 (1990)

http://www.tbaptist.com/clientimages/48350/challengerarticles/thedangerofwitnessleebooks.pdf

Witness Lee friends, what is the context of the above quotes?
What is your understanding of those texts?

Thanks,
Daniel