That flexibility of disagreement is evident in Christian scripture. Its just not evident in a lot of ministries. We have a strong biblicist impulse in modern churches. When I was a child I was taught that the Christian scriptures together with 'Old' testament were altogether preserved by God and miraculously arranged, prescient and fabulously exegeted by our Church leadership who were in constant contact with God. That is fairly common in a lot of newer type churches. We had many bible readers, too; so what is evident now to me was not evident to them, then. They probably would be surprised by your statement.This may surprise you, but that would not bother a Jew one bit. During the Rambam's (Maimonides) time there were fellow Jews who disagreed with various views and conclusions of his. There are Jews today who disagree with various ideas of any given Jewish leader. In fact, let's review a few quotes from the Rambam on this fact.
“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”
“You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.”
“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”
Within Jewish thought there is no problem at all commenting on something that doesn't make sense logically, doesn't appear to be correct, doesn't match the Torah standard, contradicts the words of Hashem, doesn't match what has been passed down from Mount Sinai to any given era, or that an individual has a personal disagreement with. It is a Torah requirement from Hashem for each Jew who writes or states something to back up their words with correct information and proof. In fact, the Torah requires Jews to seek out and verify the validity of all things at all times.
If Paul was a Jew, as the NT claims him to have been and if Paul really was at one time a Pharisee who was commissioned by a Saducee high priest to go on missions in Syrian Damascus to arrest people then he would understand that his personal letters to various Christian communities, if taken as some point to be a type of doctrine, would be up for scrutiny from the Jewish communities of the world. Especially, if there are things that he wrote that don't match the Hebrew text of the Tanakh.
The Talmud is often thought to be idolatrous since you reverence its words. A lot of people call it 'The traditions of men' as something to be done away with. A lot could be said against that, but it arises from a superstitious belief in the powers of the canon. We have (or recently have had) some churches here in America which believe that a Christian could verify their belief by handling poisonous snakes. Such is the belief in the perfection and miraculous nature of the bound bible as it is in protestant canon. Obviously things aren't perfect in among churchmen, however the scriptures themselves never claim to be perfect. They are not at all like a Quran (which claims perfection) or a geometry proof (which claims to be logical). The gospels do say that they are accounts, but they have no introductions, no forwards, no genre stamped on them. I think they are also filled with clear indications that they aren't supposed to be taken literally. The letters of Paul don't come in bundles with the letters he has received, so often its guessing to say what he is replying about.
Paul is unassailable, mainly because there isn't anyone who can claim that they are an expert on him. Does he believe Jesus is this or that? Does he believe Jesus isn't? Does he uphold the law or not? These remain debatable.