Acts 21 proves that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher

Paul's viewpoint, as demonstrated in that scripture in Acts 21, as well as demonstrated by the Apostles and older men in their statement recorded at Acts 15, is very clearly carry out the matters of law or don't, it makes no difference, just don't think you will get saved by doing so.How can you say it does not make a difference? The law was highly important if you believe in the OT: " Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man." (Ecc. 12:13)Either this statement is the word of God or it isn't. I have yet to meet a Christian who understood the law in the OT. No matter how many times I quote Deut 6 :25, people still think the law was never meant to be obeyed for righteousness: "And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness." (Deut 6:25)And yes, people did keep the law despite what Paul thought. That is another debate.That is why Paul was content, as an ex-Jew, to do as he was told, since it made no difference to his future, but affected the consciences of other, as he explained in the 1 Corinthians letter I quoted previously.Why would Paul do what anyone told him if it was wrong? Paul taught that keeping the law was wrong.No, his sacrifice did not bring an end to "forever", however it did bring and end to the Law as a rigid Law code forever, because it was a once and for all time sacrifice and, as prophesied in Daniel 9 caused sacrifice and offering to cease. Daniel 9 is way too vague for this discussion but saying that Jesus' sacrifice brought an end to the law is perfectly in line with Paul's doctrine. The troubling thing is that no one else taught that. I have read it many times, and no Paul was not teaching any message different to the other Apostles. He was, as were they, teaching the message that reliance on the Law for salvation was at an end and was brought to an end by Jesus' sacrifice. If Paul's message was no different from the apostles, why were they telling Paul to keep the law to prove that "you yourself are living in obedience to the law" (Acts 21:24). There is just no getting around that. If the law was no longer important or necessary and obsolete, why was Paul being asked to prove that he was still keeping it? You have yet to answer that question and that is the main part of this debate. Paul said that no one is justified by keeping the law (Gal. 2:16) so why would he not take this prime opportunity to set them straight? The whole thrust of his message was not against carrying out the things in the law, but about practising it, which is a very different thing, and the Jews were teaching that one had to obey the Law to be saved.Where is that verse, exactly? Either way, it was true. They believed in 2 things: 1. You must have faith in Christ2. You must still be keeping the law which is proof that you had faith in Christ. Beyond Paul, the NT teaches that you have to keep the commandments:"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus." (Rev. 14:9)Whilst there was no harm or benefit in doing the things in the law, "walking in the customs" was the problem.That was what keeping the law meant.Of course it also has to be remembered that we are here being told of a rumour, but was that rumour actually what Paul had said or was a a distorted version of it, Seems to me that the rumor was 100% true about Paul. Of course he was teaching against keeping the law. You've read Galatians. The apostles were evidently not getting Paul's letters but only heard the stories. That is why they summoned Paul to Jerusalem in the first place. They were HIGHLY CONCERNED that he was neglecting the law! Why, if the law was "nailed to the cross?" You still have not answered that. They pressured Paul to prove that he was keeping the law by pressuring him to conform to the Nazarite vow, complete with offering, something that Paul also taught was no longer necessary.