Rock star?

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Peter had obviously displayed the gift of healing.
Mt 10:1 Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.

James 5:14-15
 
Last edited:

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
His role was, according to his own admission, to be "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:1, cf. 2 Pet. 1:1). Every other role assigned to him is merely Catholic eisegesis.
let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant
 

Johan

Well-known member
Mt 10:1 Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.

James 5:14-15
Collectively, yes. It does not preclude the fact that spiritual gifts are distributed non-uniformly on an individual level, as Paul states:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Cor. 12:7–11)​

It is not clear what your implicit argument is. That all of the apostles had received the gift of healing, but that people thought that Peter's gift was more "powerful" than the others'? It would be really far-fetched to propose that people somehow knew of Peter's alleged primacy and that they, therefore, thought that his shadow had miraculous properties.

Since we are in speculation territory, the commentatory Charles Kingsley Barrett (2004, p. 277) suggests that Luke might have wanted to put Peter and Paul on an equal level by highlighting similar stories of virtually superstitious expectations among the people. In Acts 19:12, we read that people collected handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul because these items had miraculous effects.


References

Barrett, C. K. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the acts of the Apostles. T&T Clark.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Collectively, yes. It does not preclude the fact that spiritual gifts are distributed non-uniformly on an individual level, as Paul states:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Cor. 12:7–11)​

It is not clear what your implicit argument is. That all of the apostles had received the gift of healing, but that people thought that Peter's gift was more "powerful" than the others'? It would be really far-fetched to propose that people somehow knew of Peter's alleged primacy and that they, therefore, thought that his shadow had miraculous properties.

Since we are in speculation territory, the commentatory Charles Kingsley Barrett (2004, p. 277) suggests that Luke might have wanted to put Peter and Paul on an equal level by highlighting similar stories of virtually superstitious expectations among the people. In Acts 19:12, we read that people collected handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul because these items had miraculous effects.


References

Barrett, C. K. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the acts of the Apostles. T&T Clark.
Did you read what I wrote? 🤔 :unsure: It is not about Peter's power -- reread post #1 like it is the first time you have read it.
 

Johan

Well-known member
Did you read what I wrote? 🤔 :unsure: It is not about Peter's power -- reread post #1 like it is the first time you have read it.
What kind of game are you playing? Your first post consists of nothing but a quote from Acts 5 with your formatting added. He was a highly regarded apostle; no one denies that. Obviously, his healing gifts were noted. Nothing more can be deduced from that passage.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
What kind of game are you playing? Your first post consists of nothing but a quote from Acts 5 with your formatting added. He was a highly regarded apostle; no one denies that. Obviously, his healing gifts were noted. Nothing more can be deduced from that passage.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? YOU explained it away with 👇
Peter had obviously displayed the gift of healing.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Cor. 12:7–11)
Here was my response.... 👇
Mt 10:1 Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.

James 5:14-15
Just stop it.... 😞
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
And Peter was never a leader of the church, except in the imagination of the Catholic "church" of the adversary.
From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt 16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'), rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...
 

Johan

Well-known member
From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...
Your scholar is also committing eisegesis. None of those passages says that Peter was the formal leader of the apostles. Peter, James, and John were regarded as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9) of the early church and it was in fact James who presided over the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15, an episode conveniently neglected by your scholar), making the official pronouncement ("it is my judgment, therefore") regarding the issue at hand. However, I do not find any corresponding evidence that Peter "presided" over the choice of a successor to Judas. Luke writes that Peter "stood up" and argued that a successor to Judas had to be appointed (appealing to the Scriptures). It is not recorded that he made any decision or had the final say, but merely that "they nominated two men" and that "they cast lots." They thereby put the decision into the hands of God.
 
Top