That's his own tradition which he sees as proper and fit and I have no problem with it. In fact, most of us Orthodox always stand in church throughout the 2-hour Divine Litugy "in honor of God." It is only in America that some Orthodox churches have pews.
But the tradition of standing for what is believed to be the word of God (i.e. the Torah) in Judaism was carried to standing when the Gospels are read, because they represent the direct witnessed and living words of God, not revelations made in somone's dreams or in a trans.
If Paul really didn't understand the personhood of Holy Spirit, then your real criticism is of Christ Himself for faulty teaching. Paul says himself that everything he teaches is not from man but from Christ directly/I>
Christ made a big deal of baptizing (Great Commission) yet +Paul thought nothing much of it (he admnits to baptizing only a handful of people and thinks his preaching was much mroe important). I doubt that Christ would have told him something different than what's in the Gospels.
But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).
Anyone can fairly deduce the Trinity from the scriptures
If that were the case than it would not have taken the Church three hundred years to establish a dogma because so many who read the scriptures did not deduce what is so obvious. Retrovision is always 20/20, but Holy Trinity does not stand out in any of the scriptures and in those places where it is fraud is evident (i.e. Comma Johanneum in 1 John).
Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.
Well, certainly a small part of the scriptures consists of dreams and visions, but I can't believe you are saying that everything outside of the Gospels fits into that category. It's not even close. The vast majority of non-Gospel scripture is written in the same matter-of-fact style. For example, Paul's epistles were just as much of an eye witness account as to what he had seen as the Gospels are. IOW, Paul also directly related God's words based on his personal eye witness. (It actually goes further than that, but that is a separate issue.)
Christ made a big deal of baptizing (Great Commission) yet +Paul thought nothing much of it (he admits to baptizing only a handful of people and thinks his preaching was much more important). I doubt that Christ would have told him something different than what's in the Gospels.
I agree, Paul was taught by Christ exactly in accordance with the Gospels. Christ never said that water baptism was salvific and Paul agreed. You cite the evidence. Faith, the goal of preaching, IS much more important than baptism. This is not to diminish baptism at all, after all I am a Baptist, the point is only that they are on different levels of importance. There are plenty of people who have had true faith but were never water-baptized, who are now in Heaven. Now, we must remember that Paul was indeed only talking about water baptism in your reference. Paul and Christ were in full agreement that baptism of the Spirit is absolutely vital to salvation.
But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).
What does "on occasion" mean, once? :) Here is what Paul said:
Gal 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Now, based on this if what Paul preached was not exactly in line with what Christ told him, then we know that Paul is a complete liar and we should believe none of what he says. I am more than comfortable that Paul was exactly in line with Christ, but I know many people are not so sure. Paul goes all or nothing in this passage, so we have to choose what to believe.
Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.
Since you lean against it, I don't know what you would accept as obvious. But here is a neat (and easy to use) webpage that gives multiple examples of scripture showing the Trinity, and in different contexts, which makes a better argument. Trinity In The Scripture.
Acts 9: (Paul) ??? Is this story suspect in your mind?
Acts 10: (Peter) ??? Is this story suspect in your mind?
Revelation ???? Entirely suspect in your mind?
The above is but a small sampling of God's word being transmitted thru Trance, Dream, Angels, etc. Is it all suspect in your mind?
But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).
You appear close to claiming it was a mistake to Canonize the writings of Paul.
I am somewhat in agreement with you concerning the preaching/teaching of Paul. I am struck by the I,I,I's in his writing. Further, I am of the belief that the misogynistic attitude toward women in the Orthodox/Catholic Church stems directly from Paul.
Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.
Careful! You are in danger of drifting into my (Unitarian) camp. :)