In Paul’s own words:
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas, and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)
But that isn't Paul rejecting the disciples, or the disciples rejecting him.
In the WEB version, Paul stated that James, Cephas, and John were “reputed” to be leaders of the Church. Paul didn’t state that these men were the leaders of the Church, he stated they were “reputed to be pillars.” The word “reputed” in other translations is replaced with the words “seemed to be,” “recognized,” and “considered to be.” Take the word “reputed” out from Paul’s description and he has claimed that James, Cephas, and John are the pillars of the Church. Put that word back in and Paul is stating that others claim them as leaders, but Paul is not necessarily in agreement with them.
Paul was not a team player for Jesus, he was a soloist on a mission.
No he wasn't a soloist. He went on missionary journeys with Silas, Barnabas, Luke and others. He talks about many lesser-known Christians as his "fellow workers."
Sure, his letters paint him in the spotlight as the most important player on the team,
No they don't. Indeed, the opposite is true. For example:
“For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?” (1Co 3:4-5 NKJV)
“I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1Co 2:3-5 NKJV)
“For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (1Co 15:9 NKJV)
but this is from letters attributed to Paul that the false teachers collated and assembled as the word of God called the Bible. In his own words, Paul resented the leadership of the early Church. But then if you consider that to be the truth, we find a few apparent contradictions. First, you can read in Galatians 2:9 how James, Cephas, and John gave Paul the “right hand of fellowship.” But these are the words of Paul.
For proof that the disciples rejected Paul, look at how many times they met with this great missionary--twice over a seventeen year period.
Disciples were followers of Jesus, not merely the 12 apostles. And Paul regularly met with fellow Christians, disciples.
Paul and the disciples did not get along. Paul even publicly chastised Peter and bragged about it in his letter.
He didn't brag about it:
“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Ga 2:11-14 NKJV)
No bragging there. Paul doesn't say, "I am better than him." He explains why the "withstanding" was necessary. How to regard Gentile believers was a lesson that Peter had to learn, as we know from the vision he was given about the sheet with ceremonially clean and unclean animals.
What did Peter have to say about what happened? Peter didn't get a chance because he wasn't there to comment. Can you imagine anyone publicly attacking Peter or John? It's hard for me to fathom.
But Paul wasn't attacking him. You say that Peter didn't get a chance to answer because he wasn't there. Look at the verses I have just quoted. How could Paul withstand him to the face if he wasn't there? And notice, Paul says, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” How could he do that if Peter wasn't there?
Yes in the first account Ananias claims that Jesus appeared to Paul--Paul doesn't, he claims he had a conversation.
What was the bright light? That seems to be how Jesus appeared to Him. Paul spoke to Jesus as to someone who was there. "Who are You, Lord?" and so on.
Ananias departed and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 9:17)
The story morphs over time and Paul starts claiming that Jesus appeared to him:
and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:8)
The Paul claims in the final account that Jesus appeared to him:
But arise, and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will reveal to you; (Acts 26:16)
Paul's story has changed over time and not just in a small way, but a big change. This is evidence of deception and if you're wondering thy Paul and the leaders of the Church only met twice, this is the answer. They didn't believe Paul and Paul rejected them because they wouldn't accept him.
No the reason they didn't at first accept him is that previously he had persecuted Christians. They were afraid of him to start with:
“And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought [him] to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.” (Ac 9:26-27 NKJV)
The Catholics claim that Matthew 16:17-19 is Jesus appointing Peter to lead the Church. There is absolutely no evidence supporting that claim like you have stated, so they made a few edits to build the reputation of Peter. He is always listed first, in some verses he is separated from the other disciples:
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” (Mark 16:7)
In these days, Peter stood up in the middle of the disciples (and the number of names was about one hundred twenty), and said, (Acts 1:15)
Peter, being the only one to walk on water was key.
I am not a Roman Catholic, so why bring up Roman Catholic claims about Peter? You say he was the only one to walk on water. Well, he did for a moment, then became afraid and began to sink.
Matthew essentially does not exist for the verse you reference--and that story was copied from Mark! John, the most thorough accounting of the disciples doesn't list Matthew but he does extensively discuss Nicodemus--very early in his book.
Matthew was created by the Catholics because they needed a disciple to be with Jesus to here Jesus appoint him the leader of the Church and walk on water.
I don't believe that the Roman Catholics created the gospel Matthew.
Nicodemus wasn't with Jesus like the other disciples--hence the copying. That's a big clue for the integrity of the Gospel of Mark. A religious leader who wrote an account of Jesus to prove him as the Messiah copied information from the Gospel of Mark. That says that the author of Mark was definitely an eyewitness too!
There is no evidence that a man named Matthew wrote that Gospel if you look at the records.
There is more evidence that Matthew wrote it than that Nicodemus did.
The Trinity
The Person of Jesus Christ
Salvation by Grace Through Faith
The Authority of Scripture
The Second Coming of Christ
