Yes. Jewish dietary laws were divinely inspired too. If that is true, then the NT's release from dietary restrictions sounds like God changed His mind.
Now it seems the Church considers the writings of the early church fathers, in some cases, to be inspired
Never.
It is interesting to note how you really seem to have a problem with St. Paul
I don't have a problem with +Paul, nor do I reject him. I find some of his theology interestingly different not only from what the Church holds (such as his doctrine of redemption), but how different it is from the accounts written by the Apostles who actually walked with Christ.
+Paul's vocabulary and theology change. He uses novelties, such as calling the faithful 'saints.' In the Philippians he says that Christ existed in the "form of God" (2:6), and in the Romans he says that not the hearers, but the doers of the Law will be justified (2:13).;
I do have a problem with people who proclaim +Paul to be inspired and therefore his writings to be the word of God, yet blatantly ignore those passages they find "unfitting" for their purposes. Such as the already mentioned restrictions +Paul puts on women speaking/preaching in church, or women being covered in church.
This kind of phenomena are observed only in Protestant churches in which, by and large, +Paul stands out as the defining theologian of the NT.
If his words are not his but God's then these restrictions are absolute not relative, or subject to fashion and social norms. Yet they are related as such.
Can bishops (priests) marry?
Priests yes; bishops no. The Church implemented many disciplines that were needed or were considered profitable for the well-being of the faithful; some were in response to changing times, some were in response to different cultures. But that is not theology.
For instance, the 40-day fast before Nativity and Resurrection was implemented by +John Chrysostom 1,600 years ago. The Church documents explain why it was deemed necessary and good for the faithful to follow those, but no one remotely familiar with the Church will confuse them with theology. I find strict rules applied to everyone patently wrong, particularly dietary ones. But the Church reminds us that "do no harm" applies to you as well as others.
I would like you to show me where the Orthodox Church changed its teachings (theology), not vestments and discipline, but if you want to lump them together, that's your prerogative I suppose.
Kosta, you're getting sloppy: priests cannot marry, nor can deacons, nor even subdeacons in the Slavic reading of the canons. Married men may be ordained to any of those orders (with the consent of their wives), but may not be consecrated bishop unless they are widowed or they and their wife agree to separate and embrace monastic professions (as was the case with Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and his wife).
I'm quite certain you actually know all this, but you should be more precise when describing the discipline of the Church to those who do not.
With all due respect, this is all gooblygook nonsense. You first complain about people not following scripture and then turn right around and say the Church is allowed to change things. If you want to say Protestants don't follow scripture after preaching "sola scriptura", well guess what, very few Orthodox or Catholics do either, even the parts they haven't changed. We all fall short.
While, regretably Protestants try to explain away things, Catholic and Orthodox simply say that parts of the scriptures are obsolete. I don't see much difference. This is evidence of our sinful nature, another thing Orthodoxy tends to explain away.