RE: Paul the Pharisee.
There are a few reason why Paul woudl call himself one, and on eof them is to claim a kind of legitimacy for his views and his issues, sort of like claiming to be a JW Elder would boaster claims of how things work for JW's.
Of course j ust as that is easilr dispelled here, that would be the case in those days too, perhaps more so.
Just because Paul was a militant pharisee doesn't mean he wasn't a pharisee, just like Jesus's disciple who was a moderate zelot was still caled a zealot.
What we have as "facts" about Paul is that he was a rather militant and arrogant Jews, self-admited Phairisee and that he persecuted the early followers of Christ, that he had a vision of Christ that converted him, rather painfully, that he preached the Gospel of Christ being resurrected, that he did speak with the apostles, that they disagreed on things, that Peter thought him to be a tad extremisst and said things that could be confusing at times, that perhaps James had issues with Paul's views on salvation and that Paul wrote many letters, typically specififc to each church he set up, sometimes alone but usually with another like Barnabas ( to whom he was "second"), we also see that Paul tailored his teachings to the individual churches.
Most scholars and students of the NT do NOT think that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles becvause they are inconsistent ( and that is being kind) to his teachings and writhing style.
The issue that Paul didn't mention miracles or things of a more personal nature in regards to Jesus is an issue IF we assume that he SHOULD have mentioend that in his letters.
Thing is that even the letters that we have from John, Peter, and James, don't go into any of that either and they were there ( except for James).
I really don't think that his letters not speaking of things that WE think they shoudl speak means as much as some people want it to mean.