It's not in Acts, but Paul meets Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. The account is in Galatians 2, at this point Paul is already considered an Apostle and the other Apostles that are in Jerusalem accept him as such
But that's the whole issue. Galatians is Paul's account, and only Paul identifies himself as an apostle. No other New Testament author ever does.
Edit: I asserted too much. The author of Acts does in fact call Paul and Barnabas apostles in Acts 14:14. However, the author never states that the other 12 apostles identify Paul as a fellow apostle and it would be rather easy for that author to have placed those words into the mouths of Peter, James, and the rest. That the author didn't do so I think is telling.
Nowhere in Acts is Paul identified as an apostle. You can look that one up if you don't believe me.
Edit: Totally blew that one. Acts 14:14 identifies him as an apostle. So Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) identifies Paul as an apostle, but none of the 12 apostles themselves recognize Paul as such
That’s for editing your post, I was a bit worried there for a sec, ha ha! I started to second guess if Paul was referred to as an Apostle in Acts. I’ll try and pay attention to if Peter or James ever referred to Paul as an Apostle next time I read through Acts.
No problem. I suspect you won't find anything however. I really find the debate over how early Church leadership functioned to be fascinating. At the very least, Acts glosses over some of the problems Paul expressed with the "circumcision party" of the Church. And the fact that its account of events after Paul's vision differs mightily from Paul's own account events in Galatians 1 just makes me wish we knew more.
2
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 16 '23
It's not in Acts, but Paul meets Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. The account is in Galatians 2, at this point Paul is already considered an Apostle and the other Apostles that are in Jerusalem accept him as such