Thanks for the reply.

I do not believe that we have any reason to believe that Paul's preached gospel prior to the epistles is any different than the gospel he wrote down...

Note when I'm talking "different", I'm not trying to suggest he said one thing in person and then something contradictory or incompatible later. I'm just recognizing that an epistle is necessarily a very very small subset of speech compared with spending days, weeks or months with a congregation teaching them something for the first time - there are necessarily things he said in person in delivering the gospel which are not recorded later in the epistles.

All of that which he preached required to "throughly furnish us unto every good work." (II Timothy 3:16-17). In other words, we have what it is needful to have in the scriptures, per Paul's own testimony.

Although you may not share the view, my understanding is that scholarly consensus pretty much says Paul did not write II Timothy. Regardless of authorship though, he's talking specifically to Timothy here, and (although I'm not a new testament scholar by any stretch) it sounds like he's talking about what we now call the Old Testament scriptures (which Timothy has known "from infancy").

Do you deny the inspiration of scripture?

My comment about Acts was motivated by the observation that personal letters dictated first-hand by the author are more likely to be authoritative when speaking of the author's experience than what is most likely third hand information (depending on who actually wrote it) passed orally and committed to manuscript decades later. Acts is at odds with his epistles in some pretty significant ways. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "do you deny the inspiration of scripture" but I suspect I've answered your question.

I don't believe that it did, given his testimony regarding the inspiration of scripture (II Timothy 3:16-17).

Again, I'm not suggesting that he made any kind of dramatic about-face, contradition, or incompatible chance. But I think it's reasonable to say that the experience of ministering to so many new churches, years of thought and reflection, letter-writing, sitting in prison, meeting the Jerusalem apostles and hearing their stories, developing with them the guidance for Christians on Jewish ritual law, and so much else that happened during that time, might have refined his ideas in some areas - I was curious if there were any examples. I understand you don't believe that, which is fine.

Thanks again, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply.