1) Galatians 1:6-7: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another.
Why would the Holy Spirit include this? I'm always curious about every single phrase He utters, we need to be prepared to not ignore it. Now pathetically I submit, some translations re-write the Greek to say in verse 7 " not that there is another one". What basis did they have for this? When I look at studies on this, those who seem to be fluent in Greek claim the NKJV is the accurate translation of the Greek. The other side seldom appeals to the actual Greek.
Hi Fred. I don't really get your point here. How do you interpret "which is not another"? Doesn't Paul explain in Galatians that a "gospel" that is a mixture of grace and works is wrong, and for that reason "not another" gospel at all?
2) Galatians 2:7-8 says: 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 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles).
It's very hard to wiggle out of this. Just now when I searched for online study for "two gospels" I noticed the following: http://www.biblestud...opical/gal2.htm, and http://www.biblicala...ans%202%207.pdf
I have never heard a compelling argument to refute this type of exegesis of these verses.
Perhaps you haven't but on the other hand I don't find this very strong evidence of two gospels, at least not when it concerns the core truth of the gospel.
Someone preaching the gospel would obviously need to tailor his message differently to different audiences, especially if the audience was as familiar with the scriptures as the Jews were. Paul wrote:
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Cor 9:20Have you ever noticed the difference between witnessing to someone in a cult, who is well-versed in scripture, and someone who has never heard the message before? To witness to someone in a cult often requires sending someone who knows a little about the doctrinal flaws of the cult in question, and even with this knowledge it usually takes a long time to break down the thick walls of defence that surrounds the mind of someone who has been indocrinated. (I know, I used to be one).
So it seems reasonable to me that there would be two separate, and somewhat different, administrations of the same gospel.
3) Why does Hebrews 8:13 state the following: In that He says, 147A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The plain text says that the old covenant (worksGrace) was not yet obsolete. After all, shirley there must be a difference between the two covenants? (sorry for calling you shirley).
OK, I'll assume the role of Shirley (someone has to)

This is a difficult verse, but my guess is that it was "becoming obsolete" as the gospel was advancing. An old covenant is not replaced by a new one until the two parties involved are in agreement. While the old covenant was handed over to the Jews relatively quickly the new one was (and is) being spread by word of mouth, which is a slow process. Just as a covenant does not exist until two parties agree on it, a covenant never becomes obsolete except by agreement.
On the other hand, what is your explanation of these verses? Were the apostles going around handing out a fading gospel that already existed? It doesn't make sense... but perhaps I haven't really understood your position exactly.
4) Why does Paul not chastise James for following the law in Acts 21:17-26?
I think it was for tactical reasons that the gospel was being introduced
gradually to the Jews. The gospel was controversial enough as it was with what Paul was teaching about circucision, and James expresses his concern about this here:
"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do?"What they agreed to do was a sort of compromise. To avoid a riot and risk the faith of many new converts being destroyed in the process they did some "religious stuff" to cool things down. Probably a good example of being innocent as doves and shrewd as snakes.
Those are some biggies just for starters. If there were two gospels at that time (one that was fading away), it would also explain all those law verses in James that confuse everyone, the book Martin Luther fought to get tossed out of the Bible... if only Mr. Luther had realized it was written to the Jews.
I don't think the "law verses" are a good defence for two gospels. To start with, and I think you will agree, there is a difference between grace and "lawlessness". The difference between the "works" of the old covenant and the "works" of the new covenant has to do with where they were located - the old covenant the laws consisted of a "external" written code, whereas the laws of the new covenant are written directly into our hearts. This is why it says:
"the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." Deut 30:14 Why do you suppose James wrote what he wrote if the apostles were preaching works as apposed to "faith only"? Consider what Peter wrote to the Jews about Paul's letters:
"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."And then look at what James writes in James 2:14-26.
Obviously the "faith only" teaching
was being taught to the Jews, but it was being distorted and getting out of hand (as it is today). The Jews were misunderstanding the relationship between faith and works and becoming complacent.
Everything James wrote about works is true. If you are living by faith then you will also be doing things to serve and please God - not because they are written down on paper or stone, but because they are written on the tablets of your heart where the Holy Spirit can communicate and inspire. Works inspired by the Holy Spirit are not dirty rags.
OK, now sticks and stones... have at me, fellow idiots
You won't get any sticks and stones from me Fred. I promise.
(Perhaps we should agree on a covenant to that effect!)