Acts 21 proves that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher

I find it interesting, and telling, that from the Galatians scripture, whihc you site as Galatians 5:2-6, you do not show the whole scripture. Is that because the last part weakens your argumentation? Galatians 5:2-6 2 See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOU become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU. 3 Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law. 4 YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part we by spirit are eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness as a result of faith. 6 For as regards Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith+operating through love [is]. That last scripture alters the apparent tenor of the whole. Paul is not criticising them so much for acts such as circumcision, but for the lack of reliance on Christ, and the reliance on works of law to gain salvation. One has to remember the context of this scripture. The Jews who became Christians, or at least a far too large number of them, insisted that one could not be saved unless one followed the law. This meant they were relying on the Law, and therefore the old Covenant for salvation, whereas Christianity tauight that Christ's sacrifice ended the need for any future sacrifice. To cling to the law for salvation was to deny the power of Christ's sacrifice to save you. Paul's stance on that was later verified by the Apostles and Older men in Jerusalem who said, after a long and prayerful deliberation about the Law, sent the message, recorded at Acts 15:28,29 "28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" In fact the whole of Chapter 15 of acts is worth reading. One thing you will notice, in verse 2, if you do, that it was not only Paul who disputed with them, but Barnabus also. Strictly speaking, that pronouncement by the 1st century Governing Body, should have put an end to the arguments, but unfortunately it didn't, and that debate rages on today as threads on here which promote the following of Torah illustrate only too well. So Acts 21:20-35 Does not demonstrate that Paul taught a different kind of Christianity, what he taught was perfectly in line with the pronouncement of the Governing Body of Apostles and Older men in Jerusalem. In fact it would appear that if anyone was in the wrong there, it was James, though not entirely because as Paul himself said there was a need to tailor your ministry to your audience, which he did as he describes at 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. 20 And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, that I may become a sharer of it with [others]. Thus he happily did as James suggested for precisely that reason. So no Paul was not teaching a different Christianity to the rest, though those who wish to undermine Christianity will say all they can to undermine Paul, the most prominent, strongest,and most quoted of all the Apostles.