As a Pharisee, Saul would not have liked Jesus' teachings one bit, if they turned him into the arch persecutor of Jesus' earliest followers before his conversion on the road to Damascus. After his conversion, Paul's belief system was centered on the miracle of how this man could still be seemingly alive after his crucifxion, so he drew upon the Pharisees' concept of resurrection to explain it, altering it just a bit to have Jesus be the first fruits of resurrection. This in no way neccesitates that Paul's other Pharisaic views that had opposed Jesus' teachings would change. Yet, faith requires good Christians to assume that from his conversion on, Paul's views all automatically became compatible or synonymous with the teachings of Jesus which he never heard (or if he did hear them, which he could not tolerate at the time).I couldn't say it better.
Fundamentalist teachings are often heavily Paul- and Apocalypse-based, with much less emphasis on the evangelia. IMHO, the letters are "secondary literature" at ebst and should not be considered revelation, and the apocalypse should be entirely ignored.