Your question seems to imply that the Paul of the Pauline letters was a real historical person and that this person was the same person as referred to in the letters as well as in Acts.
I don't believe those things. I agree with Hermann Detering that the letters are pseudografia designed to express a gnostic type of christianity as opposed to the Jewish type of christianity as practised by the Ebionites or Nazarenes (who strongly opposed the so-called Pauline viewpoint).
The New Testament was put together and heavily edited by the orthodox branch of the church in Rome. Its different texts were also taken from heterodox groups of christians which were adjusted to make them fit in with orthodox views.
So who really wrote the more original (non yet edited) Pauline pseudo-letters and who does this Paul in the letters really stand for? The first church to have used the original letters was the large church of Marcion. We do not know whether Marcion himself took part in their writing or whether there were different gnostic authors involved from the same gnostic school of christianity. The bible of the Marcionite church only consisted of the original Pauline letters and a more original version of the gospel of Luke and nothing else. The orthodox church of Rome lengthened and edited these (as well as other texts which they took from here and there).
The view of this mythical Paul in Acts makes him subservient to Peter but in the original letters (without the interpolations and newer letters) Paul is still in opposition to Peter who was the leader of a Jewish messianic sect.
According to Hermann Detering the Paul of the original letters is modelled on Simon of Gitta (Simon Magus) and the authors of these Pauline pseudo-letters were from the gnostic school of his followers.
That does not answer the whole question because what would the historical Jesus have wanted?
That depends on how you see this historical Jesus.
I personally do not believe that the historical Jesus would have liked the gospel of Matthew or its more original version that may have been used by the Ebionites. I think those followers of Jesus put words into the mouth of Jesus that were never his, such as apocalyptic predictions and different orders to stick to the Jewish law which do not build on the original teachings of Jesus.
I do think Jesus would have somewhat liked the gnostic ideas of Simon of Gitta but they don't seem to build directly on the historical teachings of Jesus as found in Q either. So it would go too far to say that Jesus would have liked either the gospel stories or the original Pauline letters. But I feel quite certain that Jesus would not have liked the syncretic amalgam which the orthodox church of Rome conconted and the ritualism and lack of real spiritual practices in that religion. I don't think that Jesus ever wanted his mission to turn into the mission of a ritualistic and superstitious Roman church.
