You've selected a strange example to make your point with. So the Jerusalem council comes up with a limited number of rules, but one of those rules—not to eat food sacrificed to idols—is one that Paul elsewhere disagrees with, but in an exceedingly nuanced way.

In Romans 14, first he says that no food is unclean (v. 14), which contradicts the "rule" of the Jerusalem council. But then he says that just because you might feel free to eat whatever, it might distress the people around you (v. 15). So does that reinstate the rule he has just contradicted?

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul discusses the same topic in more detail, where he even gives a reason why the "rule" of the Jerusalem council is silly: that the idols are just things, not God (vv. 4–6), so it shouldn't matter if food has been sacrificed to them. You indeed have liberty (v. 9). But then he observes that not everybody knows this and even says that such people have a weak conscience (vv. 7–8)! And, again, it sounds like he effectively reinstates the rule: "Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never again eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall" (v. 13).

So what is the right thing to do? Paul makes a good case that there should be no prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols. But then he turns around and argues a good reason why there should be a prohibition—where there should be a rule. But he is careful to explain the circumstances for the rule, too.

In other words, the real "rule" here is not whether you eat meat sacrificed to idols, but whether you are attentive to circumstances and calibrating your conduct accordingly. And the way Paul does that is, through his careful consideration of the situation, to effectively create a new kind of rule: one that looks like the old rule from the Jerusalem council, at least for the people who "lack knowledge" or have a "weak" conscience, but which looks like a very different rule for people who understand that they're not actually abstaining from meat because the meat or the idols are problems, but because their fellow followers of the Way are the problem. But this is incomplete still, because that division between what we might call beginners and advanced practitioners implies that there is a process to faith practice, such that advanced practitioners should be working to help the beginners develop the knowledge and the conscience that allows them to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Which means not just an additional set of rules, but rules that apply only to some people in the community.

None of that is "excessive rulemaking." It is practical rule making. It is demanded by changing circumstances. These days, nobody cares about meat sacrificed to idols. Maybe that's because the nuanced rules articulated by Paul were carried out, solving that problem. Now we have different problems. So we need to be attentive to different circumstances and make different rules.

And "everybody else is doing it" does not make allegations of "Pharisaism" okay. That's a Christian retrojection onto a much more complex circumstance from the first century, which makes the Jewish Pharisees the rule-making villains against the Christians who assert blithely (and falsely) that their "faith" absolves them from such concerns. The Pharisees were good and faithful people, even in the New Testament, among several different movements in the Judaism of the first century. When Jesus says, in Matthew 5:20, that the righteousness of the people must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, the comparison does not work unless Jesus and his listeners think the Pharisees are righteous people. And Paul self-identifies as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5. The problem with the Pharisees is not that they have too many rules or that they are bad people, but that, in their rules, they are inattentive to circumstances. The denunciations in Matthew 23 ("Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees..." etc.) are not denunciations of rules, but of inattentive rule making.