The overall goal of your question (determining if you were "in the right path for my beliefs or not") probably can't be sufficiently answered here as you'll find competing opinions according to different denominations and belief systems.
That being said, I can give a rudimentary summary of how each side approaches Paul's writings and let you choose for yourself.
The general conclusion that Messianic Jews come to and the biggest difference between it and other teachings is that the Old Testament Law is every bit as binding and active as it was before Jesus' death/resurrection. Some of the most noticeable ways this plays itself out is in keeping the dietary laws, celebrating Jewish holidays, and celebrating the Lord's day on Saturday instead of Sunday (keeping the Sabbath). Their conclusion usually follows some form of this logic:
- Jesus practiced the Law
- Jesus increased the strictness of the Law (Matthew 5:21-30 for example)
- Jesus says he came to fulfill the Law rather than abolish it (Matthew 5:17)
- God doesn't change his mind (Numbers 23:19) therefore He wouldn't take away the Law
These principles cause them to claim that a lot of New Testament writings (mostly Paul's) about circumcision, diet, freedom, and the Law are misunderstood by "mainstream" Christianity.
I didn't know what to call this as it's intended to encompass most breeds of Christianity that aren't considered Messianic Judaism. There are so many different denominations and standpoints within them that it's important to note that this isn't the blanket, 100% standpoint of the "everyone else". That being said, most "mainstream" Christians believe that Jesus' death/resurrection satisfied the requirements of the Law, removing the binding nature of its commands for the Christian. Their conclusion generally follows this logic:
- Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17)
- Jesus' sacrifice in our place makes it no longer necessary to practice the sacrificial system outlined by the Law (Hebrews 10:10)
- Peter chooses not to burden the Gentiles with Jewish Law (Acts 15:5-21)
- Peter had a vision that nullified the dietary laws (Acts 10:9-16)
- Paul speaks at length about circumcision not being necessary for Gentiles and stresses freedom in Christ. (Galatians 5 for example)
- The author of Hebrews refers to the Old Covenant as "obsolete". (Hebrews 8:13)
Those principles cause these mainstream Christians to specifically ignore the old dietary laws, the sacrificial system, and things considered ceremonial or ritualistic laws (things like wearing clothes of two kinds of material in Leviticus 19). They focus more on what Jesus calls the 2 greatest commandments: loving God and loving people. They generally believe that the Old Testament laws still have a place in the Christian's life (providing context to moral laws, teaching history, and illustrating how difficult it is to follow the Law without Christ's intervention for example) but do not see them as binding post-Christ unless repeated in the New Testament. It's important to understand that I'm paraphrasing here and a lot of people hold differing views on the Law, especially as it relates to things like homosexuality).
To go back to your original question, "Did Paul/Saul, during his era, teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today?", you'll likely get a different answer depending on which breed of Christian you ask.
To the Messianic Jew, Paul implicitly taught to keep Jewish Laws but explicitly stressed that they're not what saves a person, faith alone does that. To most other Christians, Paul taught freedom from the Jewish Laws (most prominently circumcision), the importance of loving God and others as our main form of worship, and warns that our freedom is not a blanket license to sin. They believe this plays itself out in a very different way than Messianic Jews claim.
As for personal belief, I subscribe to the "everyone else" notion. I believe Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews, for example, are extremely clear in their stances and an honest reading of the text illuminates those principles sufficiently. My aunt and uncle, on the other hand, swing the other way.