Why would it have been logical for Paul to go to Jerusalem and ask Peter what Jesus taught?
It would have seemed logical because Peter and the other apostles had been with Jesus for three years and could tell Paul everything He taught them. Paul could have gone to Jerusalem to receive their firsthand account. However, God did not permit that, because He wanted Paul's revelation kept separate and untainted.
Les explains that the passage does not say Paul went to Jerusalem, even though many people think that would have been the logical thing. Peter and the Twelve had spent three years with Jesus, so Paul could have asked Peter to tell him everything Jesus taught. But the Holy Spirit kept Paul from being tainted by what the Twelve had learned at Jesus' feet. The risen Lord had something totally different to reveal to Paul and did not want it mixed with Israel's program. Paul therefore conferred not with flesh and blood, because he was dealing with the flesh-and-bone Lord Jesus in glory. He did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, though he did not take away Peter's authority.
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
More Questions
Did Paul go back to Peter and the other apostles to learn what they knew?
After those three years God did not send Paul back to the Twelve to pick up everything they knew; Paul was not an extension of Peter and the Eleven's ministry.
Did Paul go to Jerusalem or consult anyone right after his conversion?
Immediately after his calling, Paul did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did he go up to Jerusalem.
Did Paul go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who were before him?
In Galatians 1:17, when Paul realized he was going to be an apostle of the Gentiles, he did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him.