A. I have been arguing that very thing all along. Historically, no one, not even the Ante Nicene Fathers gave any indication that they thought there were TWO gospels. This idea did not see the light of day until 1800s when it was cooked up by an Anglican clergyman.
The translators of the KJV (1611), who had no dog in this fight, certainly believed that two different gospels were spoken by Paul here:
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7;KJV).
What I would like to know is if there is more than one gospel how come the plural form "gospelS" cannot be found? Instead it is always the singular "gospel"
The Greek word translated "gospel" means "good news" or "glad tidings." How would it be possible to make those meanings plural?
John taught only one gospel even by your definition. In 1 John 1:7 he wrote both that Christ's blood took away our sin and that He is the Son of God. (1 John 1:7)
I always have said that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period. The Hebrew epistles were written after the end of the Acts period. Now a question for you. Do you think that those in the Jerusalem church were taught what Paul says here?:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal.3:24-25).
If your answer is "yes" then tell me why the Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained "zealous of the law" and continued to partake of the ordinances of the Law of Moses?:
"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law" (Acts 21:20).
In 1 Co. 15 Paul is not saying he was the first to PREACH the message of the cross. He is saying he was the first one to preach this message TO THEM
I never said that the verses say that Paul was the first to preach that gospel message. But let us look at this verse:
"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" (Gal.2:2).
In
The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say that
"there was one gospel though it was preached by different apostles to two distinct groups of people" (Walvoord & Zuck,
The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, 594).
However, on his commentary on Galatians 2:2 he turns around and says:
"Paul seized this oppurtunity to consult with the other apostles 'privately' connerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 593).
If the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
It seems to me that much of MAD doctrine is built upon what was NOT said in particular sermons even when elsewhere in the Bible the speaker evidences that he has the understanding of the missing doctrine.
Again, we have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Yet those who believed the gospel message which he preached that day were saved.
Do you deny that?
If your answer is "no" then we must believe that men were saved by hearing just a pert of the gospel. Is that what you believe, even though the Scriptures state that salvation comes as a result of believing the gospel and not just a part of the gospel.
Next He visited the Twelve[/CENTER]
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:44-47
Yes, their minds were opened to understand the REVEALED things in the OT Scriptures. But the gospel which Paul first preached was in regard to a "mystery" truth, or something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures:
"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past" (Ro.16:25).
I have answered many of your points in this post so please return the favor and answer my points.
