Trinitarian Christian apologist, Jonathan McLatchie of the Apologetics Academy, made the claim Peter believed in the Trinity yet if we examine Acts 2:22 and Acts 10:38 we see Peter is attributed with quotes which indicate he did not have Trinitarian beliefs. It’s very difficult to believe a Trinitarian would speak like this.
In Acts 2:22 we see a comment attributed to Peter where he clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus. He states Jesus was a man (not a god-man or God) and he attributes the ability to perform miracles to God not to Jesus.
Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. [Acts 2:22]
Acts 10:38 attributes another comment to Peter. Again, we see Peter differentiated between Jesus and God. Note at the end, it states God was with Jesus. It does not say Jesus was God.
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
A Trinitarian does not speak like this.
Here’s a video refuting the Scottish Trinitarian, Jonathan McLatchie, who shockingly claimed Peter was a Trinitarian
Was St Peter a Trinitarian or Unitarian?
If this video does not play, it has also been uploaded here
Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians shared valuable citations on the historical Peter:
“It is one of the inscrutable ironies of Christianity’s humble beginnings that we know so little about Jesus of Nazareth’s leading disciple— the one identified in the Gospel of Matthew as the “rock” on whom Jesus would build his church, listed in later Christian tradition as Rome’s first bishop, and one of its two apostolic martyrs at the hands of Emperor Nero. But who was this man, and what happened to him? Any conventional quest for a “historical Peter” runs into the ground rather swiftly.”
“Yet they remain remarkably vague or silent about many of the things we would like to know about this apostle’s origin, character, missionary career, and death. Why would these sources show such a lack of interest in the fate of such a prominent apostle? This can only leave the modern reader frustrated and mystified. The historical Peter himself left virtually nothing in writing, and even less of archaeological interest— whether in his native Galilee, in Jerusalem or Caesarea, in Antioch or Corinth.”
“Among the numerous extant writings in his name, there are of course two short and remarkably different letters of uncertain date and origin in the NT. Beyond that, we have a bewildering range of apocryphal sources, styled as written by or about him, dating from the second through (at least) the sixth century. The authenticity of these documents remains contested among scholars of diverse critical presuppositions. On perusing the scholarly secondary literature, it seems hard to dispel the impression that the vast majority of leading specialists on both sides of the Atlantic now regard neither of the NT’s two Petrine letters as coming from Peter’s own pen.” Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 3-4). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition
Clearly there is very little material to draw upon concerning Peter. Are Trinitarians really being faithful to the evidence when they claim Peter was a Trinitarian? No. My message to Trinitarian Christians, don’t rely on apologists for the Trinity. Look into matters for yourself. Research. Pray (to God alone) about things.