A few random objections:

• The variations in the different accounts are tiny and typical variations among different eyewitness accounts or even one person's recollections over time. These variations don't change the meaning of the story and don't even make a dent in the credibility of the entire body of Paul's work.
• Paul didn't need the same kind of training as the fishermen and other common workers Jesus recruited among the original 12. Paul was a Pharisee who studied at the feet of Gamaliel and advancing ahead of all his peers - hence he would have eventually wound up as high priest if Jesus had not recruited him. Jesus has not told me his reasons for recruiting him separately, but my theory is that he would have been disruptive to the others to have a Rhodes Scholar in their mix. It would not take long for Jesus to spin Paul up on the basics of His message and then Paul's lifetime of expertise would have allowed him to connect all the dots. That's Paul's assigned mission, to provide that expert tie to the Old Testament scriptures.
• All of the Disciples fanned out around the Mediterranean, so Paul was not the only one traveling. In Acts 15, it was clear that Peter, James, and John were pleased to give Paul the task of planting Churches throughout Asia Minor and Europe - and that he was perfectly capable of handling that task given the many churches he started. Who are we to say that some other division of labor makes more sense than what those Apostles agreed up among themselves with God's guidance.
• The "kicking against the pricks" means "kicking against the goads". These were pointy sticks used to steer teams of oxen, not some sexual innuendo. Oxen would "kick against the goads" when pricked by them. Hence the term, "You goaded me into action."
• The Apostle John tells us explicitly what constitutes being "anti-christ" and it has nothing to do with your definition:

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.

• Paul never did this and therefore is nothing to do with antichrist.
• John lived in Emphasis for two or three decades after Paul was killed. This was the very epicenter of Paul's teachings and his writings went out from there in all directions. If he had been in error, John had plenty of time to stamp it out, since he was the last remaining Apostle for a whole generation.
• Peter himself validated that Paul was legitimate:

2 Peter 3:15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.…