Yes...it is, and yes...it is.
Paul describes the reasons for the council a little differently than Luke: [Galatians 2:1-5] Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Yup....circumcision was the subject. [11-12] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
There was evidently a powerful faction in the Jerusalem Church holding to the necessity of circumcision. As explained in your article.....God had already shown this was unnecessary for salvation.....good for health reasons...... but unnecessary for salvation.
Nothing was discussed about abolishing God's Sabbaths and Feast Days.....or The Ten Commandments!
Thanks for that Diego. It’s funny how many times I’ve read Galatians 2 and never made the connection with Acts 15!