Acts 21 proves that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher

I find it interesting, and telling, that from the Galatians scripture, which you site as Galatians 5:2-6, you do not show the whole scripture. Is that because the last part weakens your argumentation? Had to edit because I ran out of characters. Made this debate too short. Weaken? 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. No, I am sorry but their faith in the Messiah was already established. They were already learning from the other apostles to keep the law also (not in place of faith). This is what this meeting was about. Why would James be bragging about their actions if they had it all wrong? I really think you should read it again. Their belief in Jesus is not up for debate. Paul's teaching about not keeping the law was the hot issue of the day. This meant they were relying on the Law, and therefore the old Covenant for salvation, whereas Christianity taught that Christ's sacrifice ended the need for any future sacrifice. Who taught this...besides Paul? It almost sounds like you are quoting Paul to prove Paul's doctrine. Again, Paul NOT keeping the law is the issue here. James is questioning Paul if the rumors are true or not. James does not tell the Jews to avoid the law but brags about them keeping it. 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.If Paul did not teach a different kind of Christianity, why are they asking him to dispel of any rumors that he himself is not keeping the law - something they were keeping in Jerusalem? Paul was teaching just the opposite to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians. In fact it would appear that if anyone was in the wrong there, it was James,You just said that God allowed false teachings by his early church leaders appear as doctrine in his word in the book of Acts. Also, Paul should have corrected them on the spot under inspiration from the Holy Spirit.You mentioned 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; (edited)...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..." This is just a lot of Paul's gobbledygook and none of it makes sense. Would it have been acceptable if Paul had added "and so to the child molesters, I became as a child molester." What does any of it mean? Did Jesus say to "compromise who you are and what you believe and teach so you can accommodate your listeners?" Did James, Peter, Timothy or John say anything of the sort? No, only Paul. Thus he happily did as James suggested for precisely that reason. Are you suggesting that in "God's word," the greatest apostle of all time committed a sin (by his own teachings) in order to appease his audience? Paul had his head shaved and participated in the offering, part of keeping the law, the very law he said we are "rid of" and was a "curse."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.Biker, read it again, ok? Paul not only was teaching a message that was different from the apostles in Jerusalem and it is not only my opinion, it was the apostle's opinion. Again I say to you, that is what Acts 21 is about. If Paul were a true prophet, he had the perfect opportunity to say "James, I am not going to participate in the cursed rituals of the law. God told me to tell you that you are all wrong. No one can keep the law and Jesus nailed it to the cross. Aren't you reading my letters? Isn't God telling you the same thing"? No, Paul simply conformed to what they wanted and that is why many people consider him a false prophet. He had his own teaching. Should Jews who believe keep law now?