[kosta50]

Well, does it seem more reasonable to reconcile these verses by concluding that Paul made up his own gospel, apart from Christ, or that Paul is saying that his Gospel is identical to Christ's Gospel?

Yes, he is implying that, but his gospel is not what Christ taught the Apostles (sans +Paul and +Luke). What +Paul is preaching was not Judaism and not what Christ taught.

It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is saying that the Gospel he is preaching, "his Gospel", is the same Gospel that was given to him personally by Christ

But it's not the Gospel Christ spoke to the Apostles in Person. Nor does Christ ever hind that there will be some +Paul.

Another way to look at it would be that if Paul did go out and preach his own made-up gospel, then it would mean that God made a colossal mistake in choosing Paul

Obviously not, since the Church survived. But the Church does not teach everything +Paul taught.

[Quix]

and not what Christ taught.
= = =

Hogwash and hair splitting won't make it so.

It is inconceivable to me that the dear Friend and Lord Paul met on the Damascas road would have blessed Paul with anything less than the full Christ-focused; Christ-centered; Christ-modeled; Christ-motivated; Christ-led Christianity.

Paul was no accident. What he taught was no accident. What he taught was nothing less than Holy Spirit's script for Paul . . . as in The Holy Spirit of Jesus The Christ--sent by Christ to lead all believers into all truth . . .

You'd have us believe . . . all believers EXCEPT Paul?

I think not.

I know, not.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "... if Paul did go out and preach his own made-up gospel, then it would mean that God made a colossal mistake in choosing Paul."

Obviously not, since the Church survived. But the Church does not teach everything +Paul taught.

OK, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But this does tell me something. Does it tell you anything? :)