Perhaps this a few years too late for you - but here goes ;)
I hear you on the Pauline doctrine...and more. In fact (having significantly revised my faith over the last 10 years - roughly age 30 onwards), I now can see a significant distinction between the 'hellenistic' portion of the NT (typically John & Paul) vs the classic jewish Matt, Mark and basically Luke (though He's greek - he's not pushing a strong hellenistic agenda, remaining more pragmatic than philosophical). By hellenstic I do mean pushing a lot of platonic philosophy (Christ is the Logos and the Logos was in the beginning etc etc; Presumably Logos was part of John's attempt to woo the platonics - but essentially breaking stuff as he goes about it. I'd recommend reading some of Eusebius to understand where John is coming from re Logos - but I'd also recommend reading him as he buttresses his early church history with a lot of other external material and is generally well regarded.
Maybe a bit easier - I'd also/instead recommend the following podcasts by Michael Patton - particularly the early ones too. I don't agree with everything theologically - but found the intellectual honesty to be very high there and significant concepts expounded - all of which is sadly lacking generally. Put it this way - I wish my parents had grown up on that ;)
Sorry - I'm just going to dump some stuff as it comes - but I can't emphasis how critical these realisations have been to me - and if I hadn't come across them - I could imagine going the the severe doubts that you've grappled with without relief.
1/ Paul (and generally the Christian church today) - overplays the spiritual/mystical aspect (yes - a throw back to the platonics/stoics concept that spiritual=good, flesh=bad - which is actually in sharp contradiction to God generally & the OT - but just highlights the reality that Paul/John were products of the culture they were in). Not bad per se - but not theologically accurate I believe. This causes a significant derailment in the commonly preached theology of today.
2/ Our (western) culture is strongly weighted / generally all about innocence-guilt - which is one of the many things from the Greek/Roman culture we inherited. Middle-Eastern culture was based more around Honour and Shame - and I suggest that rather seeing that type of culture as backwards - realise that our innocence-guilt culture may not really work in an ancient world that's dominated by feuding tribes/cities/nations - that doesn't have a police force that can turn up on your doorstep minutes later after dialling 911/000 or an overarching judicial body to enforce our 'inalienable' rights. The judicial system often consisted of your neighbours/village. Christ spoke to a culture that understood and praticed honour and shame as a daily necessity for survival - and group survival at that. While simple innocence & guilt played a part - to see what a lot of the 'that doesn't make sense' parables are about - there is no way around the need to understand the middle-eastern culture at the time. Yes - I can recommend a book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes . e.g.: The parable of the 'faithful' servants who invested their money for return in contrast to the 'unfaithful' one who buried it - make no sense on face value - but the meaning lies in that the servants transacted business in the master's name - a master that wasn't all that popular - and who may not be returning (as he's gone off to secure his position with his soverign - just as had happened with the jews some years before with Herod heading off in a simliar manner), so the servants that transacted his business while he was away - did have faith (i.e. actually were faithful to him as they threw there lot in with him) - as opposed to the unfaithful one which thought he was unlikely to return - and tried to play it both ways by burying it hoping for a win-win but in fact demonstrated his disloyalty. Tons more of this - lot of 'oh I see' moments when reading the book.
3/ Christ (from the Matt/Mark/Luke Gospels - which I consider more accurate than John's lengthy monologing Christ) is on far more about 'doing' the right thing rather than the heavy 'belief' requirement (which is somewhat undefined) in Paul/John's letters. Also note how modern church to be 'saved' you have to 'believe' the right stuff? (and actually this 'believe' is more about knowlege than true belief) Believe 'Jesus is God' or 'you *must* believe in Jesus....' etc etc which is actually quite vague and not what Christ actually pushed when he was here either.
3.5/ A strongly emphasised key to being 'forgiven for your sins' from 'accurate' Jesus - is that you must forgive others *before* God will forgive you - in fact in the parable of the 'unforgiving servant' - the servant was initially forgiven his huge monetary debt - but when he failed to forgive others there small/minor debts and treated them harshly - the anger of the King came down on him. Also - 'forgive us as we forgive others' in the Lord's prayer - more so in the original greek - makes it clear that our sins aren't forgiven UNTIL we forgive others. Now - with such a critical issue as being forgiven by God - apparantly the reason for Christ's death - surely the paragons on the Church Paul & John should have heaps to say about it???...?? surely???.....nope. Which is a key reason why I question some of their theological credentials.
4/ The word 'saved' is unfortunately equated with 'getting into heaven' - The actual word in cultural context is more about your are physically saved from death (e.g. S.O.S) / your physically healed / your relationships are restored / your are at peace with yourself and God (wholeness) / disaster averted etc etc. Nothing about looking forward to post death salvation - it's all about the here and now physical/emotional salvation!! That's something to ponder in that it contrasts the traditional 'spiritual is better than physical' notion.
5/ The whole concept of 2nd coming make a lot more sense when you realise Christ is talking (occasionally metaphorically) about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This explains a lot more of the text - and fits well historically with the destruction of Jerusalem. E.g. Christ tells people to flee when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke) - generally at that point you couldn't get away / it's too late - but as history tells it - the army did unexpectedly pull away for documented reasons - and many people then had the opportunity to leave. Note that a strong walled city such as jerusalem was considered the 'safest' place to pull back to in times of war - so running away generally went against common sense.
Generally Paul I think misunderstood this and his whole 'the church falling away' discussion can be linked to his misunderstanding about the above event (which occurred after he died - so it'd be interesting to see if he actually reconsidered his position - but Paul being Paul - I'm not so sure he would. Even John misses this.)
I've thrown a little bit out there and there's more. There's so many supporting aspects to a world view that it's not until the old ones are brought into doubt / discredited and a new set raised in readiment - that a new world view can be tolerated. But I can only encourage you to go with your gut feel - question all that doesn't make sense with religion and seek out intelligent answers - recognising that it may not all be explainable at this stage - but be prepared on occasion to give it the benefit of the doubt - and I guess that includes God ;)