At think at some point you have to look at the situational evidence in early Christianity to see whether or not a schism between Paul and the Jerusalem church existed. A review of first and early second century Christianity does reveal historical records of that conflict.

“Those who are called Ebionites (Hebrew for Poor) agree that the world was made by God… They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the Law” (Irenaeus Adversus Haereses Book 1, Chapter 26)

You do see evidence of this form of Torah compliant Christianity within Acts. Insomuch as the author of Acts either didn’t know about or took pains to conceal the table fellowship incident between Peter and Paul (Galatians 2:12) and may have heavily sugarcoated the narrative of early Christianity to present a more positive story for the reader and the leave out mention of too much intra-brotherhood frictions and any gory depictions of Paul’s decapitation in Rome, he nevertheless is one of the few sources of information for early Christianity. Sometime before Galatians was written “certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2). There really shouldn’t have been a question in the first place much less dissension and dispute unless the Judean believers in Jesus practiced a form of Christianity that required circumcision and followed the Torah. Does the Vatican need to hold a council with all the bishops present to decide if Muslim converts need to follow the Mosaic Law?

The storyline continues “some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed (in Jesus) rose up, saying, ” It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). Why would these Jesus believers demand that? They themselves must have kept the Law of Moses. After the different sides make their appeals, if the version in Acts is to be trusted (there is contention in the scholarship), James concluded that “I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20). From this rough summary of his letter, it’s unclear if “blood” is referring to dietary restrictions or the sexual purity commandments concerning menstrual bleeding in the Mosaic Law.

One does have to note though that James follows this concession to ease the burden on Gentile converts with the reiteration that “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21). There is a possibility that Acts 15:19-20 was a scribal insertion by the author of Acts as Acts 15:21 flows much more smoothly if it were to directly follow Acts 15:18: “Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

I’m inclined to believe that the early Jerusalem Church was not too strict with the earliest Gentile converts as Galatians 2 noted that “not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” (Galatians 2:3). They probably wanted him circumcised voluntarily, but were going to physically hold him down to do so.

However, Acts also records an incidence were someone was circumcised according to the Law of Moses. Concerning “Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed…Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew his father was Greek” (Acts 16:3). But since his mother was Jewish, Timothy was technically partially under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law compliant faction of Christianity.

In another part of Acts, James reports “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law, but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs (of the Law).” (Acts 21:20-21). James ordered Paul to undergo a Nazirite purification ritual of repentance per the dictates of Numbers 6:13-18 and to cover to the (very significant) costs of 4 other Nazirite initiates, presumably as atonement: “so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law.” (Acts 21: 23-24). There’s a remarkable amount of silence from Paul, given his vocal resistance in his epistles, so I can only conclude that whatever source the author of Acts used didn’t have more information concerning Paul’s side of the argument during his second visit to Jerusalem, but I’m sure Paul had his objections.

I think Galatians 2 best alludes to the different gospels that Paul preached and that James and the other apostles preached: “when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter. For He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles…that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the Poor (scholars have argued that this refers to the Ebionites as that was the self-epithet for the group), the very thing which I also was eager to do.” (Galatians 2:9-10)

The gospel of Peter was effective amongst the Jews because it was a Mosaic Law compliant gospel and the Jews were already “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). The gospel of Paul was effective amongst the Gentiles because I can’t imagine many first century non-Jews were enthusiastic about circumcision without anesthesia.

Now one could make the argument that after the 1st Council of Jerusalem, not all of the Jewish Christians were comfortable with the minimal yoke imposed on the Gentiles, and it appears “false brethen, secretly brought in who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Jesus Christ”(Galatians 2:4) reported back to Jerusalem that Paul’s congregation was flouting their mandates and eating meat sacrificed to idols and committing sexual immorality. To Paul’s credit, he did kick out the congregant who had sexual relations with his mother: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles- that a man has his father’s wife!” (1 Corinthians 5:1).

But scandals like that probably didn’t reflect well on Paul’s congregation in Jerusalem. One has to wonder if the Jerusalem apostles and elders regretted their leeway as all epistles following Galatians show a steady steam of emissaries hounding Paul and his followers to abide by the Law and the dietary restrictions concerning meat sacrificed to idols and circumcision requirements, in particular.