Are they different or are they the same Gospel to different people groups?
Yeah, thought I'd put it under the right heading.
Then explain Acts 10 and 15...There is one post-cross true gospel of Jesus, two two gospels post-cross. This is the majority view because it is right and biblical. This one gospel was preached to two different target audiences by two ministry teams (Gal. 2 demarcation of ministry).
The gospel of the kingdom relates to the King. Even though the kingdom emphasis declined when Israel rejected the King, it will be resumed in the future Tribulation period.
There was a historical shift from a Jewish Christian to Gentile Christian center over time in the early church (Peter to Paul), but this is not evidence of two gospels, just an expansion of the one gospel beyond sectarian, cultural circles.
(see, did not even have to mention that MAD is wrong...oops.).
Then explain Acts 10 and 15...
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.Acts 10 and 15 are not a problem for Acts 2 disp. Acts is transitional, selective history, not didactic, systematic theology. The issue is paradigm, exegesis, etc. There is a reason most credible Christian thinkers through the centuries disagree with your MAD minority view.
e.g. Acts 15 is Paul and the Jerusalem Church standing together against a false Judaizer heresy and hypocritical believers, not an affirmation of a shift from one true gospel to another. You are misreading the evidence. We would have to walk through the whole book, the context of the chapter, etc. You have a hyper-disp paradigm that you read into the text. Alternate understandings are more biblical in my mind.
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
-Acts 15:28-29
This was after Peter had spoken up. Why did the council want Paul to continue to preach to abstain from things offered to idols, and things strangled, if they agreed that the law was put away?
And why in Acts 2:38 does Peter call for baptism if what Paul preached was now the case? Why even call Paul to be sent to the Gentiles? And why, if Jesus' commission to the 12 was part of the same message given to Paul, was Paul not sent to baptize?
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Acts 13
26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath...47 For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
Hmmm, Paul goes to the Jews with his message yet says he has the gospel of uncircumcision.
Acts 18
3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Nope, Paul clearly is not just a minister for the gentiles, but the minister of the gospel of uncircumcision. So when he says Peter to the circumcision, he isn't speaking of whom he is preaching to, but what he is preaching.
Whether Jew or Gentile, Peter or Paul, we are part of God’s kingdom because of the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Jesus spoke of his impending death to his disciples. He also spoke of his resurrection. Whether one believes there’s one or twenty gospels, the Good News is centered around the death and resurrection of Christ. No resurrection, no kingdom for anyone. How does one become part of this kingdom? Allegiance to the King, of course. Sounds like one gospel to me.Are they different or are they the same Gospel to different people groups?
Remind me to not buy your commentary or publish your posts.
Then refute it.
Refute the post you demonic pig, or get out.
What's there to refute?
There is only one gospel.
This is nothing more than opinion.Acts 15 were concessions of wisdom with those of Jewish Christian background. They were not gospel truths or evidence of two true gospels post-cross. Works cannot save in any dispensation (Rom. 4-5).
This isn't an answer. Paul was not given the same commission as the 12, but he was still an apostle. So why the difference?Baptism was a normative public expression of faith (that saves), even under Paul's ministry. Billy Graham was called to a certain ministry and Paul was called to a certain ministry. This is not evidence of two messages, but two messengers of the one message. The proof text in I Cor. about Paul not baptizing just means he did not personally baptize all his own converts. He was baptized, did baptize, but not everyone (left it to others as most evangelists do). I use the verse to refute baptismal regeneration, a heresy in all disps. Baptism never was germane to the gospel. MAD misunderstands and distorts the most basic Pauline truths to retain a wrong view.