I don't think so, FK.
OK, then what do you think he did with those three years (Gal. 1:18), and why?
The Church "put up" with +Paul because he was the only one who could "sell" Christianity to pagan Greeks and Romans.
If true, then this is one time I really don't mind interpreting the word "Church" to mean the Apostolic Church only. :) If Paul was the only one with enough slick to sell to the Gentiles, then what does that say about the other Apostles? They weren't good enough? Paul was a Jew, so he could presumably have ministered to them as well as anyone else. It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite.
What would you say to the crazy idea that Paul was specifically CALLED by God to preach to the Gentiles?:
Rom 1:1-3 : Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, ...
The Church did not "put up" with Paul because of his slick. The Apostles followed their individual callings.
Those are the real reasons for allowing Christians not to follow the Law, to forsake circumcision, to be released of dietary restrictions, and so on. +Paul made it up. Christ never taught that.
As TRD said, those things were decided at a council. Paul didn't simply declare them. If you suppose that Paul made ANYTHING up, then you cannot believe that the Bible was perfectly inspired, and may, therefore, contain error. I'm talking about your personal belief here, not that of the Orthodox Church.
Of course, +Paul was not what the Church wanted, but it was do or die.
This is a truly amazing statement because if the Church really did not want Paul, then by definition, the Church was WRONG and was directly against God. The scriptures are 100% clear that God chose Paul. God wanted Paul. So much for the infallibility of the Church. Further, if the original Church was wrong, then so must the consensus patrum also be subject to error.
The Church had to overlook some of +Paul's own personal interpretations such as his famous and very rarely mentioned verse: "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped..." [Phil 5:6]
OK, so the Apostolic Church overlooks some scripture. Well, I suppose there's nothing new there. :)
+Paulian Christianity is distinct from the Christianity described in the Gospels. The Church had to find a way to mend them.
In Apostolic theology, there can be no doubt. And boy, did you all get to mending fast! :)
Look up Gal. 1:17! :)
+Paul preached "his gospel," as he says, in Arabia. Where does it say he spent those years in 'solitude and prayer?'
It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite
He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafdeism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!
What would you say to the crazy idea that Paul was specifically CALLED by God to preach to the Gentiles?
That's what he says (Gal 1:16) and I would say that's what God did.
If Paul was the only one with enough slick to sell to the Gentiles, then what does that say about the other Apostles? They weren't good enough?
They didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).
As TRD said, those things were decided at a council. Paul didn't simply declare them.
That's what the Acts say. Concordance was badly needed, and nothing short of a scriptural text could justify running contrary to God's promise that the New Covenant was intended only for the House of Israel and the House of Judah ([er 31:31]. The idea that God somehow wanted all this to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).
This is a truly amazing statement because if the Church really did not want Paul, then by definition, the Church was WRONG and was directly against God. The scriptures are 100% clear that God chose Paul. God wanted Paul. So much for the infallibility of the Church. Further, if the original Church was wrong, then so must the consensus patrum also be subject to error
First the Apostles didn't even know +Paul until he came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Second, his suggestion to drop circumcision and dietary restrictions was not immediately accepted. The fact that the Apostles are said to have been inspired and holy men would make any disagreement, even initial one, an impossibility. yet, clearly there was a difference of opinions.
Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.
+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.
I'm talking about your personal belief here, not that of the Orthodox Church
I have my opinions, FK, like all of us, but I always defer to the Church. Such musisngs only reveal subtle details that are otherwise not clearly noticed.