"Likewise, Gentile adult circumcision, outside of the situation described in the Torah, is also a tradition.

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19"

I don't believe in Paul, but I disagree that your interpretation is necessitated here. He also mentions being in slavery and marriage in the same type of language in the same chapter. One could interpret this as Paul saying one did not have to get circumcised due t the present distress (1Corinthians 7:26), the great tribulation they were going through in those times, fleeing from their persecutors, which would have been extremely difficult, next to impossible, if one had recently been circumcised and was in the state of recovery. Just like how it would be hard do so with as a man with a wife and children to take along. And slaves being disobedient to their masters and trying to get out of their position would cause their masters to be angry with them and think that religion is bad, giving it a bad reputation, and bring more persecution on Christians.

Overall I don't buy it though that Paul was pro-Torah. How almost everybody who reads his letters comes to opposite conclusions and have done so all throughout Christian history, including me when I first read the Bible, 2Peter admitting he's hard to understand and easy to twist into lawless, therefore admitting his epistles are incoherent, and certain hints in his epistles and in Acts, these things lead me to think that the traditional Church position on Paul is probably generally the correct message he was trying to get across.