What's your source on this? It is the first time I have heard this angle. JST?
Paul showed his disdain of the Apostles that Jesus chose and taught for 3 years - throughout his writings. He considered himself superior and not in need of conferring with them on anything - until, years after becoming an 'Apostle" - he was in hot water over things he was teaching and instituting that was in conflict with the church...and because he had not been following the admonition of taking care of the poor.
His arrogance is laid out against him better in his own hand than anyone else's.
he writes, in Galatians, for example, that after he 'saw the Light' and was made an Apostle on the road to Damascus, : "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood [the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, the men that Jesus hand picked and spent years teaching],
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were Apostles before me; I went to Arabia, [for some 11 years] and returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem...
He writes, in Corinthians that "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles"
He had great disdain for the Apostles - and they did not get along - he saw no need for himself to get advice or insight about the teachings given them over the years by Jesus. His writing in Corinthians and Galatians alone are a study in self=importance and superiority over the leaders of the church - read for yourself, with open eyes.
Now considering that for the first ten years after the Crucifixion, Paul - as Saul, the Roman Commander, hunted down and slaughtered every Christian he could find - and ordered the stoning of the Apostle Steven -= and then spent more than a dozen more years after he says he became an Apostle before he deigned to go to Jerusalem and even talk with the leaders of the church - I have to ask myself, why do so many of the churches lean so heavily on what Paul taught over Jesus, James, Peter and John, for example?