No, in fact, it isn't contradicted.
You claim that Christians were "attending the synagogues"
It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues. Every office of the Church has it's counterpart in the synagogue, and every legitimate rite/remembrance finds it's beginning in Judaism as well. Often, finding the Hebrew root of such a thing is quite eye-opening.
and, therefore, hearing that they are commanded to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses.
The law of Moses does not command an adult proselyte to be circumcised. A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be, and his children, born into Israel, are native born Israelites... Conversion to Judaism need not focus upon the current generation.
Yet, the Apostles explicitly declare that no such commandment had ever been given, even though, if you are to be believed, it was the central part of the Gospel and not some new thing:
Only if they are indeed speaking of the Law of Moses - The law of Moses does not say circumcision is salvific (though it does say the circumcision of the heart is), nor does it say an adult proselyte must be circumcised... How then, can the Law of Moses be what they are speaking of? What you don't understand is that Halakha is interchangeable and united to Torah, according to Judaism, even as the Roman tradition is inseparable from the Scriptures to a Romanist. It is the very same thing.
This raises several beautiful problems for you which you are apparently unaware of. Judaism, at least its modern and talmudic counterpart, believes in two different places for the poor Goyim, one better than the other:
The first and best is the proselyte of righteousness, who, even as an adult, is required to be circumcised and to follow the whole law. Hence the Jews say:
"[A] stranger that comes to be made a proselyte at this time, they say unto him, what dost thou see, that thou comest to be made a proselyte? dost thou not know that the Israelites at this time are miserable, banished, drove about, and plundered, and chastisements come upon them? If he says, I know this, but it does not satisfy me, they receive him immediately, and make known some of the light commands, and some of the heavy commands to him... if he receives these things, they immediately circumcise him". (From John Gill's Commentary on the Bible (Matt 23:15), referencing Ib. fol 47. 1, 2.)
These also are commanded to keep the Sabbath and all the ordinances. This agrees very well with the scripture, which teaches that there is but "one law and one manner" with the Jews and the strangers who sojourn with them, and requires circumcision of whoever would eat of the Passover, saying "No uncircumcised flesh shall eat thereof" (Num 15:16, Exo 12:48).
The second class of proselytes, who are inferior and subordinate to the former, are the proselytes of the gate. These are not circumcised for any reason, neither their children, but they also are not required to follow the law of Moses, but only the seven "laws of Noah," which are: "the first forbad idolatry, the second blasphemy, the third murder, the fourth uncleanness, the fifth theft, the sixth required judgment, or punishment on malefactors, the seventh forbad eating the member of any creature alive" (John Gill's Exposition of the Holy Bible {Matt 23:15), referencing lb. Hilch. Melachim, c. 9. sect. 1.)
(Strangely, modern Jews dissuade people from becoming Proselytes of righteousness, while the ancient Pharisees went to great lengths to gain such converts, as Christ testifies, although he describes them as making them twice the devils they were, Matt 23:15.)
As an aside, these laws of Noahide can actually be summed up from Acts 15, particularly the "eating the member of any creature alive" (as the Jews understood it) wherein it says:
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Though Christians are not even bound by these prohibitions of not eating food offered to idols or food with the blood or had been strangled either. As Paul makes clear, it was prohibited only on the basis of refraining to cause offense to the Jews or to those who would see it as endorsing paganism, and not because we ourselves are dirtied from it. As Paul explains on eating meat offered to idols, "neither if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse", and again, in another places, makes the standard of sinning against the brethren as offending those who are weak (1 Co 8:4-13, 10:28-29, Romans 14:15).
Thus Christians do not even qualify as "proselytes of the gate," who, nevertheless are free from the Laws of Moses, are bound to refraining from eating meat that was not killed properly and naturally from foods offered to idols.
Back to your claim then, you are forced into believing in two classes of proselytes: One that must be circumcised, which you claim does not exist, and the other that is not bound to the laws of Moses, but only to some general universal laws, and not feast days, dietary prohibitions (most of them), and the other ritual and cleanliness laws. These you also claim do not exist, as you conflate the two types of proselytes since the scripture plainly commands against circumcision.
There is also another point of yours which offends common sense:
"A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be"
Now this is illogical for a couple of reasons. As far as I can tell, you are denying the necessity of circumcision in the first place, so why make it a requirement for children? Secondly, this would require circumcision for your fictional class of proselytes at least as a command for all children, and yet, Paul makes no such requirement, but equates the condition of circumcision and uncircumcision, making it absolutely of no value for anyone, even under the spurious logic that if we "love God" we will grab some sissors and gladly circumcise ourselves, even though it does not save us:
1Co_7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Thus your claim that children ought to be circumcised is false, and even contradicts your other arguments, since you only make "circumcision and the law of Moses" delayed by one generation (a pointless distinction), and your claim that the adults who are keeping the law of Moses can escape circumcision is also false, as explained previously.
It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues.
Notice your wording and lack of any scriptural evidence. Paul "spoke" in the synagogues. You seem to be acknowledging that the task of the Apostles in the synagogues was evangelism, not co-equal worship between two groups who are essentially the same except for their belief in Christ.
Only if they are indeed speaking of the Law of Moses
This is a red herring and also very irrational. My response was directed in wondering, if the Christians were in the synagogues being subjected to the law of Moses, how is it that they avoided being commanded to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses? Now unless you do not believe the law of Moses isn't taught in the synagogues, then your statement is simply absurd. They would have received the command, no matter how it was couched, whether for the "purpose of salvation" or for the purpose of being holier than thou. Secondly, the "law of Moses" is specifically the subject of contention in the chapter, as it says directly "circumcision and the law of Moses," and whether or not one is "commanded" to obey it or not, whether for salvation or not.
Now, having refuted your distractions, I am going to ask you again to address the following which you largely ignored before:
"Now if "no such commandment" was given, how is that possible if the commandment was given by Christ? Who came first? Christ? Or the Apostles? And what do they preach all the time in the synagogues they are supposedly present at?
I will also point out the characterization of it. They called it the "subverting" of their souls to be commanded to be circumcised and to keep the Law. Peter described it as the "yoke" that neither he nor his fathers could bare, and he also says that the Gentiles, who were not following the Law of Moses, are "purified" by their faith, and lastly, that they are saved by grace, "the same as we" (Acts 15:7-11).
You also quote the fact that the Pharisees considered it essential to salvation to follow the commandments, by which you probably mean "Well, you should still do it, although it makes no difference for your salvation." Yet you have repeatedly implied that it is a "sin" to not be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and have explicitly stated that it is part of becoming more Christ like to refrain from eating Bacon (because what is the worst sin of all? Not denying the trinity, but eating a piggy). By this we can then presume that you would believe that Peter was in obedience to the "law of Moses," although he clearly called it a unbearable "yoke."
As absurd as that already is from the context, I will put another nail in the coffin and point out that Peter was, in fact, living as the Gentiles do all along:
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"(Gal 2:14)
I didn't see that. However, I can tell you right now that I would disagree with your interpretation.
Who cares what your opinion is? Stop giving me assertions instead of well-defended arguments.
The old pope gathers himself up, his wrinkled countenance bitter and full of hate... Spittle flies from his mouth as he smacks his crosier forcefully into the floor and growls menacingly: "LET THEM BE ANATHEMA!"
But of beautiful note is that you did not dispute my statement on the failure of the Roodites to affirm the Trinity. Though they try to hide this, the Roodites are indeed extremely heterodox on every subject, whether they like it or not, and therefore no denomination, knowing these facts, will accept them. Indeed, the Roodites are anathema, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Armonstrongites, and all the other cults, and not condemned by the Pope, but by God.