A very wonderful post AGuest (Peace be within and with you).
Seems as though I recall you at one point told me (or it could have been someone else) that after reading the Bible, the best thing I could do is throw it away. I understand what you meant by that. The Law of Moses was a tutor leading to Christ and Christ is a tutor leading to YHWH who is Love. I could never understand why the WTBTS repeatedly referenced the Law of Moses when it's clearly stated "Christ is the end of the Law". The Law was intended to show the Israelites that they couldn't approach God on their own, that is to say, sin and innate human selfishness would always get in the way.
Jesus was very clear on the matter of where the Law fits into the lives of Israelites (not Gentiles who have 'adopted' it in our modern times) and he was very clear that after his death, the Law would no longer apply to anyone. But until that time, the Law was in full force and so he rebuffed those who charged that he came to destroy it, saying that heaven and earth would sooner pass away than the Law would (in the context of before he died,which people seem to not understand).
So by dying a sacrificial death and keeping the Law, Christ did two things (among many others). He showed that the Law could be kept by a perfect man, in my opinion showing Adam and Eve could have worshipped YHWH with no problems had they not been selfish by taking something that didn't belong to them. Had they truly shown Love towards YHWH, then none of this would have ever happened. The second thing that was shown was that in order to be Christ-like, we needed to dispense with the Law of Moses and instead embrace the Law of Christ. That is to say, Love, not unbending rules should be the yardstick for how we deal with others.
I agree with your statements that Paul at first tried to put people back under the Law. I myself don't consider Paul to be an Apostle (except perhaps in his own mind). Remember though that Jesus said "he that is not against us, is for us." We only have the testimony of Paul about his conversion and a disciple, Ananias. The accounts in Acts 9 relate how he was converted and that Jesus said he was to be a chosen intrument to preach to the nations, nowhere in the account is Paul named an Apostle by Jesus. It would seem unlikely that Paul would go from being a neophyte to being an Apostle almost overnight. This Apotleship seems to be a title he took upon himself so that others might recognize his "authority". It seems to me he missed the point of Jesus words at Mark 10:44 "and who ever wants to be first among you , must be the slave of everyone else." I think this is because he had not read these words yet and was still behaving like a Pharisee with all their concern over titles and authority over the people. When he learned that the Law of Christ is about Love and not rules, his teachings and personality changed.
The letters of Paul show that he never met Jesus, never once does he quote from him, nor does he reference any of the parables Jesus used. It also mentions his apparent disdain for some of the Apostles, calling them "super fine", which to me showed some jealousy as well. In Revelation 21:14 it says the names of the twelve (not thirteen) Apostles are written on the foundation stones of the Hoy City, New Jerusalem (sprititual Israel). Also the Apostles didn't trust Paul which seems odd because the Holy Spirit would have told the Apostles that they had nothing to worry about. Considering he IS addressing the Apostles and not disciples when he calls them "super fine" seems to reinforce this conjecture. It's not until the Gospels were written around 90-95 CE that Paul's letters change. Most of Paul's letters were written before that time and this helps to explain why his letters were so very different than what Jesus and his directly appointed Apostles wrote. Time and again they speak of Love, whereas Paul at first speaks about the Law of Moses. It's only after the Gospels being written down and circulated do we see a change in his writings. So in my opinion there should be some sort of preface to his letters to better explain this problem with when the writings (Pauls letters vs Gospels) were written and circulated, but there isn't and it causes much confusion.
I also agree that the church of Christ (or Temple) isn't something tangible. That is to say it's not a visible earthly organization. If there was a GB in the 1st Century then why did Paul write all his letters to the various congregations and not leave it up to the the 1st Century GB? Also why is it in Revelation when Jesus admonishes/chastises the churches in Asia does he not also chastise the supposedly then existing GB? Because there never was one. The Church is made up of the people themselves. It's not a building or an organization. There is no need to be under someone else's headship (other than Christ's). Humans are imperfect and prone to corruption. Jesus told us that the only teacher we would ever need would be the Holy Spirit. Nothing is ever said about a man-made earthly organization doing any of this. Why does the Kingdom rule from Heaven (where neither rust consumes nor thieves break in) rather than on the earth where dwell imperfect beings? This very idea of a heavenly ruled kingdom shows that the WTBTS is completely in error.
Personally I think the GB and those who persecute their fellow Christians (and everyone else for that matter) because of their own self-righteousness (and adherence to rules, rather than love) are going to have a lot to answer for. I suspect many of the anointed will have their promised "crowns" taken from them and they will be destroyed by YHWH for their presumptousness. Matthew 7:22 will then be fulfilled.
May you have peace.