...but Jesus’ teaching remained clear: salvation is found in faith expressed through obedience.[/QUOTE]
I fully agree. Paul, on the other hand, did not teach such, which again shows to us the uniqueness of his gospel given to Him by that same Jesus. Paul's gospel was not what he had learned from men, but ONLY from Christ Jesus. He stated that in Gal. 1:11-12. Paul knew and persecuted the early church on the basis of what he knew was the gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve. I've pointed this out to you and you've ignored it. Why?
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
As you can see, there's nothing in Paul's Gospel of salvation that points back to including the things Jesus commanded of Israel. What Paul preached in these passages is what was given to him directly from Christ Jesus, with not one thing stated about any requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins, as was the case for Israel preached to them by Peter in Acts 2:38, and yet you believe they are one and the same gospel? How do you get that? Why ignore the difference?
By ignoring the requirement upon Israel for them to receive remission of their sins through water baptism, don't you agree they had salvation ONLY after the remission of their sins through water baptism?
Gentiles, on the other hand, once salvation had come unto them, which clearly means it was not available to them directly before, have no such requirement upon them without one trying to illegitimately jam into the text what was addressed to Israel before her fall.
Please discuss this from your perspective in reading what's stated in scripture, especially what's quoted here. I've already agreed with you about what Jesus preached to Israel. What I take issue with is the illegitimate practice of transplanting His commands upon Israel over upon Gentiles and Jews under the Gospel of Grace when there's no evidence whatsoever in the texts that Paul was in any way remiss in his gospel of salvation to them.
Thanks
MM[/QUOTE]
The main error here, and this is crucial to understand, is the idea that Jesus was teaching only Israel and not the whole world. That assumption controls the entire argument, and because the starting point is wrong, the conclusions also go wrong.
Jesus did not teach a gospel meant only for Israel that later expired or failed. Jesus taught the Kingdom of God, and He clearly said it was for all nations. After His resurrection He did not change His message. He confirmed it.
Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20, NKJV). Notice what He did not say. He did not say, “Teach them a new message,” or “Do not teach them what I commanded Israel.” He said teach the nations what I commanded. That alone removes the idea that His commands were only for Israel.
Now to Acts 11:19. Yes, at first the scattered believers preached only to Jews. But that does not mean the message changed. It means their understanding was slow, not that Jesus’ gospel was replaced. Jesus had already told them about “other sheep not of this fold” (John 10:16). The delay was human fear, habit, and confusion, not a new gospel.
This is proven clearly in Acts 10. Peter did not say, “I bring you a different gospel now.” He said, “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean”. Then he preached Jesus, and the Holy Spirit fell on Gentiles before any argument about law, nation, or rituals. That shows the same salvation, the same Lord, the same faith.
About baptism in Acts 2:38. Peter was speaking to people who had rejected and crucified the Messiah. Baptism was their public repentance and return. But even there, Peter did not invent something new. Jesus Himself taught repentance, obedience, and forgiveness. Baptism does not replace faith. It expresses it.
The mistake is to turn historical moments into permanent divisions. Acts is a book of transition, not of competing gospels. What never changes is Jesus’ teaching: faith that listens, follows, and obeys.
You are right to say that Paul often focused on Christ’s death and resurrection. But silence about Jesus’ commands does not cancel Jesus’ commands. The Judge is not Paul. Jesus said, “The word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48, NKJV). That applies to Jew and Gentile alike.
So the issue is not “Israel’s gospel versus Gentile gospel.” That idea is never taught by Jesus. The real picture is this: salvation always comes from trusting Jesus, and that trust is shown by obedience to His words. The apostles did not replace that. They carried it outward, slowly and imperfectly, but the foundation never changed.
Jesus did not give two paths, two standards, or two kinds of disciples. He gave one narrow path, one Lord, and one call: follow Me.
