Gal 2:7 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 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 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.
Tell me, what is the difference between THE GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION and the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION?
James required obedience to the Law of Moses and sacrifices and continued temple worship.
Paul did not. Like it or not, here is the first doctrinal denominational difference in the Church.
Paul explains it in Gal 2:8 that you posted. "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)"
Peter preached the gospel to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. The recipient is the difference - not the content of the gospel. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
The NAS of v7 helps: "But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised"
There certainly were NOT two gospels. That's kind of the whole point of Paul's message to the Galatians.
Gal 1:6-9 - "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Gal 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Here's some other evidence Paul didn't know of two gospels:
Rom 1:16 - "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
To try to claim there were two gospels, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile, is proof positive that you are in over your head.
Please cite some references for that. I don't recall that in James.
Thank you.
Paul did not. Like it or not, here is the first doctrinal denominational difference in the Church."
Sorry, didn't see your post 201 which refers to Acts 21, not the book of James.
The reason is given why all the elders of Jerusalem - not just James - told Paul to assist with the Jewish Christians who had made a vow.
Nowhere is doctrinal differences mentioned, but rather an expediency to disprove the rumors that Paul was denigrating the Jewish customs.
In fact, Paul - the same Paul who harshly condemned those who commanded circumcision - had Timothy circumcised. Again it was an expediency so that Timothy would be accepted in Jewish circles.
Like brother Paul said, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing." And in another place, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."
Again, no two gospels lurking here.