Ignorance and Acts 4:13

Agreed. My main point was to counter the possible mis-conception that the temple authorities looked on Peter and John as stupid. Today many mistake \\"ignorant\\" to mean lacking a native intellectual ability. What we should take from this passage is that, though as the Temple authorities observed, the two apostle\'s did not have the formal training, they authoritatively answered and refuted them on their \\"home turf\\" of religious discourse, not that they thought Peter and John to be dumb. The context infers the contrary, they recognized that they had ably answered, and knew that it was the training received from the Lord Jesus that had equipped the Apostles to withstand and best them, (again, leaving aside the probably more indespensable quickening influence of the Holy Ghost).

I agree with you. We need someone to disagree to keep this thread going :)

I don\'t recall any of the disciples being \\"learned\\" do you? I wonder if being a temple trained authority of the day would have been a hinderance more then a help. I think this is somewhat true today in teh area of modern Psychology. Just a thought to keep the thread going... thoughts?

so.... people trained in the area of modern Psychology tending to me more of a hindrance to mental healing (analogy being of the Temple trained would be more of a hindrance to the spiritual healing?) Wow... yeah, in working with kids with varied emotional and psychological disabilities, that\'s sadly been the case. As for the ignorance of the Peter and ... wait... do you mean John, or do you mean Paul? Paul was very learned in the ways of Jewish law. John, however was not... if memory serves me right (but it is often traitorously mistaken). So... it has seemed to me that Peter and Paul were a perfect balance. Peter\'s educational \\"ignorance\\" and Paul\'s educational sophistication.

Paul was a learned Pharisee. This is different from priestly education, though. I think we can overstate ignorance as a virtue. Jesus showed his greatness when he taught in the temple as a boy. It was precisely because he spoke in such a learned way that the people were amazed (Luke 2:46-47).

Paraskeva, You make a great point about Peter and Paul. I actually was not counting Paul as a disciple (meaning the 12 who walked with Jesus and were taught by Him directly). Though maybe Paul could be considered a particular sort of disciple given his conversion experience... Anyway, here\'s a compelling thought... people like SS Peter and Paul struggled together as opposing types and still represented a perfect balance. (??) Boy, have I got a lot more work to do!

I think there are two good points about Peter and Paul. First, Paul expresses that he was able to be educated, and still be wrong (Philippians 3:5-7). His education led him in the wrong direction until he really understood it. The second point is the balance between Peter and Paul. \\"Antagonism\\" has an important place in their relationship, as we read in Galatians 2. Still, with respect to Acts 4:13, I think that they were being set apart from the Pharisees and scribes in the minds of the bystanders.