Many are at least remotely aware that some people around the world believe that God appointed prophets and spokesmen subsequent to Christ who clarified, modified, or expanded on the teachings of Jesus. Examples are Mohammed and Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saints. In each case the adherents to these later prophets grant them preeminence over Jesus, in effect. If Jesus didn't give the whole story or got it confused somehow, then these subsequent men define spiritual reality more so than Jesus.
Now, many Christians would vociferously denounce anyone who believes that any man could supersede Jesus or add to what he taught. Ironically, though, these same Christians mostly ascribe the same role of subsequent clarifier, modifier of Jesus to the Apostle Paul. In countless ways the Orthodox church looks to Paul as the source of instruction and not Jesus. If we were confined to the accounts of the Gospels and the words of Jesus, how would our Christian theology be different? Would we have the same insistence on the role of the church as the administrators of the Gospel? I think not.
It is easy to condemn others for overriding Jesus by looking to later men, but when Christians do the same thing in relation to Paul it is accepted as God ordained. Paul purportedly was informed of things Jesus had failed to communicate directly, mainly details of what constitutes church practice. Why is that? Why couldn't, wouldn't God's divine spokesman give us all we needed to know? Why revert back to a purely human spokesman, one whose fallibility is aptly demonstrated and even admitted? Are Orthodox Christians really Latter Day Saints too?