That's it in a nutshell
What was the main fault the Pharisees accused Christ of? He was ignoring the law.
One of the reasons Steven was arrested, what was the charge? He was ignoring the law.
Paul said:
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision(ie law), why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. Gal5:11
Ultimately Christ, Paul, and all the other Apostles were persecuted, and most killed because of one accusation. They ignored the law. Human nature has not changed in 2,000 years, for it cannot change.
Friend, what exactly are you saying here? That you agree with the accusers of the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul that they "ignored the Law"? And what do you mean by saying that the Messiah "ignored the Law"? If by "ignored the Law" you mean that He violated the Law and taught against it, you are getting into the dangerous territory of Him not qualifying as the sacrificial Lamb.
Following this train of thought is painting the Messiah as disobedient and the Pharisees as truly obedient ones. On the contrary, we find that the Messiah's charge against the Pharisees is that they weren't keeping the Law, but instead were breaking the commands of God in order to honor their own man-made regulations (cf., Matt. 15:1-9).
On the issue of Stephen, as someone else has already asked, where does the book of Acts record that Stephen was ignoring the Law? Here is what we find in Acts 6:
Then they
secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They
produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops
speaking against this holy place and
against the law. For we have heard him say that this
Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and
change the customs Moses handed down to us.” -- Acts 6:11-14 (NIV)
Seems like a rather straightforward narrative piece to me. These secretly persuaded men are false witnesses who bring a false testimony. The false testimony they bring is that Stephen speaks against the Temple and the Law, saying that Jesus will destroy the Temple and change the Law. If the testimony is false, then Stephen was not speaking these things. If Stephen was speaking against the Law, and saying it was changed by Jesus, then the testimony would be true. So which is it?
Let me offer a different perspective:
The Pharisees and teachers of the Law falsely accused the Messiah of violating the Law. The reality is that He kept the Law and was without sin. He only violated their misunderstanding of the Law, the fences they built around the Law, and their man-made regulations they bound upon the people. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law were the ones breaking the commands of God by putting the Law aside in order to elevate their man-made regulations. They end up putting the Messiah to death on the false charge of blasphemy. Fast forward to Stephen who, in a similar manner, is falsely accused of speaking against the Law and teaching that the Messiah would change the customs handed down from Moses. They end up stoning Stephen to death after levying this false charge. Now onto Paul, he faces similar false accusations when he visits Jerusalem, that he is teaching Jews to not be circumcised or follow their customs. He makes a public demonstration that there is no truth to the false accusations and that he himself walks in obedience to the Law. Later at the time of his incarceration and after, he is again falsely charged and the book of Acts records him defending himself three times.
So I ask in a similar way to you phrased it: 2,000 years later, are we agreeing with the false accusations of the people who killed the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul?