"Did the disciples heal as well? I thought they just, umm, discipled."

All the material- not just the more disreputable- suggests that they were also able to do miraculous things.  Or maybe more accurately, miraculous things happened around them.  However, as near as I can tell that ended with them.  There are stories that are not as attested about various apostles that are fantastic but lack good credentials.

Its a good question.

"Is healing by the disciples mentioned in the New Testament? This letter is the first time I have heard of them having superpowers."

Yes, it is.  And not merely confined to the 12.  A great deal of others (example, 72 at one time in one instance) also went out with the ability to heal, etc.  As I recall, for the most part it was just healing stuff.  I haven't been paying attention to the miracles of the disciples.  

It does begin to make more sense how Christianity went from 0 to 1,000,000 in just a few decades when we consider such factors.

"During our catfight I asked a question which was obscured - what were Matthew's sources?"

My apologies.  Why Matthew, exactly?

Anyway, it is clear that Matthew and Luke both copied- verbatim- from the book of Mark.   Liberal scholars are not satisfied with that, they also posit something called 'Q.'  (Of course no physical evidence of Q exists anywhere).  I do not put much stock in 'Q.'  It looks to me like Matthew and Luke used Mark for the substance of the story, and then based on their own objectives, filled in some other stuff.

Matthew begins and ends with an eye constantly on the Old Testament.  He is constantly trying to show to Jewish person that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy.  So, Matthew fills in the rest of his book with material from his own experience and specifically geared towards arguing that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Luke had a different goal.  Luke 1:1-4ish are his preamble.  He is writing to a Roman official described to us as 'Theophilus.'  Luke gives us some good contextual information by pointing out that many, many people were writing about Jesus already.  Luke wants to set down to collect the best accounts possible to give to 'Theophilus.'  Luke also uses Mark's material whole cloth, but then plugs in all sorts of other information.  He does not claim to be an eyewitness.  He claims only to be a careful cataloger.

The book of Acts is really 2 Luke.  Its part 2 of Luke's history, and ends abruptly with Paul in jail in Rome.  It does not record the manner of death.  This indicates (to conservative scholars, anyway) that it ends here because Paul (and maybe Luke, too) were killed after this.  Acts places them both in Rome at about the time of the Neronian persecutions, and if it was finished before their final fate was determined, that makes a dating of 60-65AD extremely likely.

As Mark was a source for Luke to have used, it would have had to have been written before that... even liberal scholars are willing to entertain a date of writing of Mark from 45-55AD.

Mark was a traveling companion of Peter.  We learn that in Luke's account in Acts.  Second generation Christians tell us in one of their writings that Mark recorded what Peter said, but not in chronological order.  So, Mark is Peter's 'Gospel' and that explains why Matthew and Luke were comfortable making use of it.

If I wasn't frightened of your avatar I'd call you a punk.

I re-affirm my view that your incredulity does not depict my reality.

I bet he eats punks for breakfast with cherries on top.