Far from it. Paul's letters were written to GENTILE churches. Gentiles do not need to become Jews and observe the 613 commandments, which is what Judaism teaches, and is what the Council of Jerusalem taught.
The Church in the diasporah were not all Gentiles,
maybe not even a majority of them until later in the century, as many Jews had already dispersed into cities in the Mediterranean region over time.
On top of that, Paul met with Peter and the others three times in Acts, all of them being Jews, so one simply cannot in any way dismiss this as just an appeal to Gentiles.
Also, as you should know, if a male Gentile were to convert into any Jewish branch, he was to be circumcised-- period! The fact that Paul said that doing this would actually be an affront to "the Way" says tons.
You'll noticed this exemption from the Law applied ONLY to the Gentiles. NO WHERE does it say that Jewish believers were free from Jewish Law. No where. Thus your argument doesn't hold water.
You are misreading what I posted, so maybe go back and read my last two posts to you again. And what I did say in part is that Paul made it clear, and not just to Gentiles, that believing in and following Jesus' teachings were more important than the Law, and he doesn't include a disclaimer for Jews.
And we know that Jews and Gentiles began to intermarry, whereas the Law mandates the Gentile spouse convert to Judaism. And yet Paul says that this is not to be done. I personally tend to believe that Paul recognizing that having the Church operating under two very different sets of rules simply wouldn't work in the long run, thus concluding that believe
in Jesus was far more important.
Also, if Jesus was just preaching conventional Law then why so many questions addressed to him that includes the hostility we read? You simply have not addressed this, and yet I believe it is part of the key to understanding that Jesus and his message was not normative to any branch of Judaism back then. This is well covered in the book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus" by Rabbi Neusner.
The truth is that there were two schools of Pharisees: the school of Shammai (which was very strict and which controlled the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day, and the School of Hillel, which was more lenient and Jesus' teachings line up with it.
Actually most scholars I've read believe there were more than two schools.
Also, Jesus did not line up with Hillel because Hillel still taught that the letter of the Law was still important to follow, although he did allow more flexibility than the Shammai school did. Obviously, there were other areas of disagreements between them as well.
BTW, are you aware that there was actually at least one
physical confrontation between those two schools according to historians? Probably a fist-fight, I would think.
Finally, in order for Jesus to have even been a footnote in Jewish history, he would have had to do and/or teach some things that would been significant and at least somewhat controversial. However, Jesus was more than just a footnote as we've seen, even though his following at first was likely relatively minor in numbers even upon his death. The FACT that Acts has it that Peter and the others stopped keeping kosher and began eating in the homes of some Gentiles is quite telling, and this you're failing to address.
Put simply, the Twelve gradually walked away from the Law, which clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles, and it is impossible for me to imagine them doing that without Jesus opening that door.
Anyhow, between the holiday here and that I don't think going any further in this discussion is really needed or desirable, I'm moving on, so...
Take care.
