What did the twelve apostles have that Paul did not, and what did Paul have that they did not?
The Twelve possessed experience: miracles, signs, and firsthand events such as walking on water during Christ's earthly ministry. Paul lacked those experiences, but he possessed the doctrine and revelations from the ascended Lord. In conference, the Twelve added nothing to him.
Les explains that when it came to experience, the Twelve had the most. They could rehearse all the miracles, and Peter could even say he walked on the water, until he sank, but he made a few steps. They had the experiences. But Paul had the doctrine; Paul had the revelations from the ascended Lord. So Paul said in conference, they added nothing to him. On the other hand, when the Twelve saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision, the Gentiles, was committed unto Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter, they recognized the same Christ, the same God, and the same Lord Jesus who commissioned the Twelve to go to Israel. They followed Him for three years and ministered under Him, carrying it on in Acts, but Israel rejected it all. Then Paul comes to the front and becomes the apostle of choice. Les also notes the order of names: James, Peter, and John, with Peter not first.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
More Questions
Why didn't the twelve add anything to Paul?
The twelve added nothing to Paul's knowledge because they did not have nearly the revelations Paul now had.
Why did Paul say the twelve's status made no difference to him?
Paul said that whatever the twelve apostles were made no matter to him because God accepts no man's person.
Why did the Jerusalem apostles add nothing to Paul's gospel?
The leaders who 'seemed to be somewhat' added nothing to Paul because they had no comprehension of the revelations Paul had been receiving from the Ascended Lord.