I don't think Paul was "inspired" when he wrote his letters----he was giving his opinion, end of story.
You're certainly entitled to believe that, but I don't think it follows from the texts cited at the beginning of the thread. Those were a couple of specific instances within Paul's letters where he stated that he was giving a personal opinion. In general, he certainly claimed God's authority for what he taught and wrote (e.g., Gal. 1:1; Titus 1:3).
It was Paul who instituted shunning, not Jesus, who condemned the Pharisees for shunning people who they thought were at the bottom of the food chain
Neither Paul nor Jesus advocated shunning of the sort practiced by the Watchtower; blame Freddie Franz for that. Paul did direct a type of shunning for sinners within the congregation, which appears to have been a withdrawal of membership in the church. Persons to whom it was applied were not to be cut off from every aspect of life, but Paul's instruction was to "admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:15). Also, the shunning was to be imposed personally, not organizationally, since Paul refers to it as "this punishment that was inflicted by the majority" (not, by all)(2 Cor. 2:6). The Watchtower has corrupted Paul's teaching for its own purposes of maintaining power over its membership.
Paul also seemed to have a major problem with women
On the contrary, given the time in which he lived, it might be fair to call Paul a liberal. He came from a Jewish society in which women were basically regarded as property, and could be beaten by their husbands, sent away (divorced) on a whim and generally had scarcely more rights than cattle. Paul, on the other hand, advocated women as of equal status with their husbands and encouraged husbands to love their wives and treat them tenderly, even to the point of dying for them if need be, as Christ had for His congregation. That was radical thinking in those days. It's really not fair to judge Paul, a first century theologian, by the political climate of the 21st century.
The only areas in which Paul restricted women were in terms of headship in marriage and holding pastoral duties within the church. And many Christians today disagree with the latter on a theological basis. There are several good arguments going around today contending that Paul never intended to restrict women from being pastors (though I am not personally convinced of them). In any event, women certainly served in many capacities in the church, even teaching in certain circumstances, but not as pastors.
It's a shame that the early Christian church hadn't continued through James instead of Paul
I'm not sure you'd like that any better. James appears to have been more legalistic than Paul, more bound to the continuance of Jewish tradition and placed more emphasis on works as related to salvation than grace through faith. Not that I believe that James' message contradicts Paul's, but the emphasis is certainly different. If James had had more influence than he did (and his lesser influence in the developing church may simply have been a function of his early death), Christians today might still be celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles (not that there's anything wrong with that) .
