Obviously multiple gospels

Right Divider

Body part
Three times Paul uses the phrase "my gospel".
Three times Paul uses the phrase "our gospel".

Both of those phrases make NO sense whatsoever if there is "only one gospel".

P.S. Even the many uses of "the gospel OF" make no sense if there is "only one gospel".
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Three times Paul uses the phrase "my gospel".
Three times Paul uses the phrase "our gospel".

Both of those phrases make NO sense whatsoever if there is "only one gospel".

P.S. Even the many uses of "the gospel OF" make no sense if there is "only one gospel".
Except that Paul also talks about "the gospel of God" 6 times, Peter 1 time.
Paul talks about "the gospel of Christ" 11 times, Peter zero times.

According to your system of accounting, that means that either Paul's gospel was not God's gospel (they are 2 different gospels), and God's gospel is not Christ's gospel, which seems patently ridiculous, or that God's gospel and Christ's gospel are the same, and the same as Paul's and Peter's.
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There are two distinct Gospels. The Gospel of the Kingdom (circumcision) and the Gospel of Grace (uncircumcision).

Galatians 2:7-8

7. But contrariwise, when they saw the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision the was mighty to me toward the gentiles
 

Right Divider

Body part
There are two distinct Gospels. The Gospel of the Kingdom (circumcision) and the Gospel of Grace (uncircumcision).

Galatians 2:7-8

7. But contrariwise, when they saw the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision the was mighty to me toward the gentiles
There are more... but those are definitely two of them.
 

Derf

Well-known member
There are two distinct Gospels. The Gospel of the Kingdom (circumcision) and the Gospel of Grace (uncircumcision).

Galatians 2:7-8

7. But contrariwise, when they saw the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision the was mighty to me toward the gentiles
But that passage, as has been pointed out before, doesn't talk of 2 different gospels, but two different people groups. Note that the second use of the word "gospel" is added by the translators for better readability. You can tell this is the case because of the use of italics in printed versions (probably in most online versions as well). Note also that it is still readable without the 2nd use:
Galatians 2:7 KJV — But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Here's the same verse without the italicized/added words:

Galatians 2:7 KJV — But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as of the circumcision unto Peter;

That makes it pretty clear, imo, that it was one gospel, two people groups. But in case you missed it there, Paul follows with a parenthetical (see your post, beginning of vs 8) to explain, that it was the apostleship of the two groups that was so divided, not the gospel:
Galatians 2:8 KJV — (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

But in case that wasn't yet clear enough, Paul reiterates in the following verse (which you didn't quote), which, once the parenthetical was closed, is the concluding point of verse 7.
Galatians 2:9 KJV — And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

"That we should go" is a phrase that comes from the idea of apostle, which means "the sent one".

To wrap up, Paul was the apostle to the gentiles (uncircumcision), and Peter and the rest were apostles to the Jews (circumcision)--with the same gospel, that Jesus died and rose again, defeating death.
 

Right Divider

Body part
To wrap up, Paul was the apostle to the gentiles (uncircumcision), and Peter and the rest were apostles to the Jews (circumcision)--with the same gospel, that Jesus died and rose again, defeating death.
The twelve were not preaching the gospel of the grace of God.
They were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.
They were preaching THAT gospel while they did not even know that Christ would die.

"Same gospel" 😅😂🤣
 

Derf

Well-known member
The twelve were not preaching the gospel of the grace of God.
They were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.
They were preaching THAT gospel while they did not even know that Christ would die.

"Same gospel" 😅😂🤣
If they were preaching that Christ died and rose again, then they were preaching the gospel of the grace of God AND the gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom gospel required the death burial and resurrection of Christ, though it could be preached in a limited form prior to the DBR.
 

Right Divider

Body part
If they were preaching that Christ died and rose again,
When they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.... they did NOT know that Christ would die!

Luke 9:6 (AKJV/PCE)​
(9:6) And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.​
Luke 18:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​
(18:31) ¶ Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (18:32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (18:33) And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (18:34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
then they were preaching the gospel of the grace of God AND the gospel of the kingdom.
🤣
The kingdom gospel required the death burial and resurrection of Christ, though it could be preached in a limited form prior to the DBR.
THEY did not know that. Therefore, they gospel of the kingdom is NOT the same as the gospel of the grace of God.
 

Derf

Well-known member
When they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.... they did NOT know that Christ would die!

Luke 9:6 (AKJV/PCE)​
(9:6) And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.​
Luke 18:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​
(18:31) ¶ Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (18:32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (18:33) And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (18:34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

🤣

THEY did not know that. Therefore, they gospel of the kingdom is NOT the same as the gospel of the grace of God.
But Peter did know about the grace of God in Acts:
[Act 15:11 KJV] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Peter was talking about the gospel he had preached to Cornelius:
[Act 15:9 KJV] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Peter did not understand the nature of God's offer to the Gentiles, so he had to be shown, through the same gifts of the Holy Spirit he and others had experienced at Pentecost, that they were able to be saved by the same gospel he and the Jews would be saved by. Thus he learned that the gospel was available to both Jews and Gentiles, AND he learned that it wasn't their adherence to the acts of the law that saved the Jews any more than it was that saved the Gentiles.

But the gospel still can save, even if it isn't fully understood by those being saved, as long as they come by faith:
[Heb 4:2 KJV] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].
[Heb 4:10 KJV] For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
[Heb 4:16 KJV] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But Peter did know about the grace of God in Acts:
That is YEARS later... MANY years later... After Paul explained it to him.
But the gospel still can save, even if it isn't fully understood by those being saved, as long as they come by faith:
[Heb 4:2 KJV] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].
[Heb 4:10 KJV] For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
[Heb 4:16 KJV] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
You and SO many others are dictionary theologians.

There are MANY gospels in the scripture. That you try to circumvent God and force them to all be the same is sad.
 

Derf

Well-known member
That is YEARS later... MANY years later... After Paul explained it to him.
You mean that was when Peter recognized that both Jews and Gentiles could avail themselves of the grace of God? Sure. So now you're saying the same thing as I am, that Peter wasn't fully understanding the scope of the grace of God, until Paul shared with him what the Lord Jesus taught him personally? Then why are you arguing against what I'm saying?
You and SO many others are dictionary theologians.

There are MANY gospels in the scripture. That you try to circumvent God and force them to all be the same is sad.
There might be "MANY gospels in the scripture", but that doesn't mean Peter and Paul were preaching a different one. You've already admitted above that Peter learned more of what the gospel was about from Paul.

How am I circumventing God by forcing Peter's and Paul's to be the same one? Please don't skip over this question, because I really would like to know. Assuming you are right for the moment, how do I circumvent God by claiming the two gospels are the same????????????
 

Right Divider

Body part
You mean that was when Peter recognized that both Jews and Gentiles could avail themselves of the grace of God? Sure. So now you're saying the same thing as I am, that Peter wasn't fully understanding the scope of the grace of God, until Paul shared with him what the Lord Jesus taught him personally? Then why are you arguing against what I'm saying?

There might be "MANY gospels in the scripture", but that doesn't mean Peter and Paul were preaching a different one. You've already admitted above that Peter learned more of what the gospel was about from Paul.

How am I circumventing God by forcing Peter's and Paul's to be the same one? Please don't skip over this question, because I really would like to know. Assuming you are right for the moment, how do I circumvent God by claiming the two gospels are the same????????????
All I can do is pity you. But I certainly am amazed at your stubbornness.

Gospel simply means "good news". It is utter foolishness to believe that there in only one "good news" in all of scripture. Particularly when God goes to great lengths to show the GOSPEL OF <many different things>. The GOOD NEWS OF <this, that, the other thing>.

Believe whatever you like. I've already wasted enough time with you.
 
Top