Did Jesus and Paul teach differnt gospels?

Okay, seems safe to conclude that you do not regard Paul as a genuine apostle.

Which is understandable since you share very similar beliefs to red letter Christians.

Paul had to content with Jewish believers who did not regard him as a genuine apostle all his life. And as you have corrected quoted from the various passages Paul wrote in Timothy, where Paul was near the end of his life, basically, many Gentile believers who used to believe in the gospel he was preaching, have abandoned him.

In that sense, the Judaizers or "Men from James" have more or less won. That is tragic indeed.

Yet James' name is on the foundation of the kingdom. Paul's name is not.

Revelation 21:14, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

and Paul teaches directly against what the holy spirit led James to decree in Acts 15.

James:

Acts 15:28-29, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Paul:

1 Corinthians 8:7-8, "However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."

Jesus:

Revelation 2:14, "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality."

Revelation 2:20, "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols."

Paul:

2 Corinthians 12:16, “But be it so, I did not burden you. But being crafty, did I catch you with trickery?”

Actually you got the wrong James, James the apostle was put to death before the "men from James" event happened in Galatians 2.

The James there refer to Jesus's brother James the Just, who was insistent that all Jewish believers must continue to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20, James 2).

If you think you are zealous for the Law, you will definitely lose to him

I'm talking about James (Jacob) half brother of Jesus. Leader of the Jerusalem assembly. Writer of the book of James. I will admit there is much historical confusion about the different men named James. Josephus record James as being stoned to death but that is a whole other topic.

Galatians 1:19-20, " 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)"

If Galatians was written after Acts 15, widely acceted as such it is possible it is this James, and considering he was head of the Jerusalem assembly and one of the main disciples it would make sense Paul mentions James (the just), Peter and John by name.
(9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars). Things Paul mentions in Galatians certianly puts it after the book of Acts, even though some people say it was written from 45-60, others say it was written later. Fact is we don;t know the exact date.

Acts 15:13-21, " 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’ 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Galatians 2:4-14, " 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

The book of James is one of my favorites:

James 1:22-25, “And become doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. Because if anyone is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror, for he looks at himself, and goes away, and immediately forgets what he was like. But he that looked into the perfect Law of liberty, and continues in it, not becoming a hearer that forgets, but a doer of work, this one shall be blessed in his doing.”

James 2:8-12, “If you truly accomplish the sovereign Law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, (Lev 19:18) you do well, but if you show partiality, you commit sin, being found guilty by the Law as transgressors. For whoever shall guard all the Law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” (Exo 20:14) also said, “Do not murder.” (Exo 20:13) Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of Law. So speak and so do as those who are to be judged by the Law of liberty.”

His name is on the foundation of the kingdom.

That James was never one of the 12, whether original or to replace Judas, so if you are going to quote that Revelation 21:14 passage, at least take note of the difference.

He only believed in Jesus after Jesus resurrected and appeared to him, so he would not have qualified to be one of the 12, based on Acts 1:21-22.

It is very understandable why you will love the book of James, given how "zealous" you are regarding the Law in this forum.

I believe that is incorrect, if you study it out that is a cathloic based doctrine because their version of Mary could not possibly have other children.

and you fully accepting Paul how could you ignore when rabbi Paul says it?

Galatians 1:19-20, " 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)"

But remeber verse 20 there: Galatians 1:20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)"

I base my belief of this James (Jacob the just brother of Jesus) on historical studies and like I said the Roman Catholic Chruch could not have Mary birthing another child so evidence shows they created this not Jesus brother/not an apostle doctrine.

What are you disagreeing with? You mean you believe that James, the brother of Jesus, was also one of the original 12 apostles, in the 4 Gospels?

I've heard certain people (particular those who attend the church of Christ) misinterpret Romans 10:9,10 in such a way that means we can believe unto righteousness today, but are still lost until we confess Christ, which may be next week and then we are finally saved next week, but that is not what Paul is talking about here. Also, someone who is moot (unable to speak) would remain lost according to that interpretation of Romans 10:9,10 for failing to verbally "confess with their mouth."

Confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead are not two separate steps to salvation but are chronologically together. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart" (TOGETHER) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9-10) - that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess.

1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except BY the Holy Spirit. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing Jesus as Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that), but is a deep personal conviction that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior. So simply believing in our head (and not in our heart) that God raised Him from the dead does not result in righteousness and simply giving lip service to the words "Jesus is Lord" not by the Holy Spirit is not unto salvation.

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. *John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

These many people (unbelievers) in Matthew 7:22 had the wrong foundation. They were trusting in their works to save them and NOT IN CHRIST ALONE. Jesus NEVER knew them which means they were NEVER saved. Their hearts were not right with God, so their "attempted external obedience" (apart from the righteousness of God which is by faith and the blood of Christ) was stained with sin. *Seeking salvation by works is not the will of the Father.

John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. The term "know" implies intimate, experiential knowledge, through a relationship with Him, not merely theoretical knowledge. These many people in Matthew 7:22-23 were not true converts.

We must not confuse the gospel that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 1:16; Ephesians 1:13) and came to him through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12) which in other ages was unknown and was still a "mystery" (Ephesians 3:1-9; 6:19; Colossians 1:26-27; 4:3) with everything that Jesus taught in the 4 Gospel accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

Repentance and faith in Christ are two sides to the same coin and are in separable in obtaining salvation. Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

You say that you agree works do not save out of one side of your mouth, but out of the other side of your mouth, I'm hearing something different. You are quoting a lot of the same verses that people who do teach salvation by works (like Roman Catholics, Mormons and SDA's) quote. You put a heavy emphasis, specifically on the words of Jesus in the 4 gospel account that involve keeping His commandments, works etc.. You don't seem to put very much emphasis on the writings of the apostle Paul, which is raising a red flag. Are you in involved in some type of Hebrew Roots movement?

After a casual reading of the sheep and goats, this parable "on the surface" may seem to suggest that salvation is the result of good works, yet all scripture proves itself right and non-contradictory when compared with the totality of scripture. This passage has to be taken alongside the whole of scripture. Jesus was not advocating salvation by works. *That would be contrary to Romans 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 etc... One's works are an effect of (and therefore indication of) one's salvation status, rather than being a cause of one's salvation. The good deeds mentioned in Matthew 25:35-36 are the fruit that will be manifest in the lives of the redeemed. Those who are placed at Christ's right hand are not there based on the merits of their good deeds, but because of the imputed righteousness which is of God by faith (Romans 4:2-6; Philippians 3:9). When works are mentioned in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition or means of, obtaining salvation. The stress is on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context, Matthew would stress the works that are a manifestation of "faith by which one receives eternal life." Sheep represent believers, while goats represent unbelievers. Do you find it strange that the righteous asked, ‘Master, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not serve You?' Jesus answered them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, in so far as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.

The evil servant does not represent a true disciple of the master. The fact that he is called a "servant" does not mean that he was saved. The children of Israel were called "servants" but they were not all saved. Leviticus 25:55 - For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Isaiah 43:10 - “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, And My servant whom I have chosen.. This is where we need to rightly divide the word of truth.

I often hear works-salvationists quote John 3:36 in the NASB and "stress" the word "obey" to imply that we are saved by "obedience/works" which "follow" believing. In regards to "does not obey the Son" in the New American Standard translation of the Bible, this does not mean that receiving eternal life is received based on the merits of our obedience/works which follow believing in the Son, but obey by choosing to believe in the Son. If John wanted to make obedience the central theme in salvation here, he would have said: "He who believes and obeys the Son has eternal life," but that is not what John said. To obey the Son here is to choose to believe in the Son.

The King James Version renders this same verse as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that "believeth not the Son" shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. The NIV says "rejects the Son" and the CSB says, "refuses to believe in the Son." The Greek word translated as "believeth not" in the KJV and "does not obey" in the NASB is "apeitheo" and to refuse to believe in the Son is to disobey, rebel, be disloyal, refuse conformity. Strong’s definition also mentions "to disbelieve willfully and perversely." In 3:36, to "not obey the Son" means to reject the Son by refusing to believe in the Son.

What do you believe it means to "keep" His commandments? The Greek word for "keep" is "tereo" (Strong's #5083) means to guard, observe, watch over His commandments. It does not mean sinless, perfect obedience 100% of the time to all of His commandments, as sinless perfectionists teach. 1 John 2:3 - By this we know that we have come to know Him, (already know Him, already saved, demonstrative evidence) if we keep (guard, observe, watch over) His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep (guard, observe, watch over) His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Whoever says he abides in Him certainly ought to walk in the same manner that He walked and as children of God that is what we strive to do.

What about "love your enemies"?
What about "resist not evil"?
What about "if any man sue thee at the law and take away they coat let him have thy cloak also"?
What about "give to him that asketh thee"?
What about "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth"?

If cutting off an arm or eye would stop a person from sinning, they should do it! But that is usually not the issue why people sin . . . .

Thats the problem with legalistic thinking

it denies works, yet cant get away from works. Thus they contradict themselves and can’t see it

I read it literally like you. But of course, I see it as a lesson for the Jews during that time period only.

When Jesus was walking on Earth, he had the sign gift of healing. He could heal all who came to him (Acts 10:38) He used this sign gift to testify to doubting John the Baptist that he was indeed their promised Messiah (Luke 7:22)

When Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews, in order for the Jews to be saved, they had to believe in him as their promised Messiah AND keep the law (Matt 5:19-20)

So his main point to the Jews in that teaching then was this, "If having 2 eyes means you have to break some part of the law, such as the law against looking at a woman in lust as I have explained, its better for you to cut one off and just make it into the Kingdom by the skin of your teeth. Once you made it, I as your promised King can easily restore both your eyes once again."

Words have meaning attached to them.

James was no less sent from God with the gospel seed than any other apostle . Being part of the twelve set aside has nothing to do with the word. Its use (twelve) is found in Revelation 21 set aside for a parable.

The word apostle means sent one with no other meaning added. Abel was sent as a apostle. He was the first apostle to be a martyr for the faith that worked in him to both will and perform the good pleasure of God.

No, Guojing, the Zealots of the Law don't say the Bible is contradictory, they just cast doubts on Paul's apostleship.

what about the heart

I had a friend here who was very zealous of the Law and once he confided to me in a p. m. that he really thought Paul was a false apostle.

Yes, you're right, if we start doubting Paul we'll be left only with the four Gospels and Revelation.

What I shared before was, the debtor wanted mercy for himself, but judgment for some other debtor.

Yes. Jesus said think about the beam in our own eye. We repent and after that correct others, not condemn them.

Also, Jesus testified of Paul,

he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel Act.9:15

Acts 1:21-22, " 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Not seeing your point this is about Matthias.

Like I said I have seen compling evidence thatthe confusion of the different "James'" was brought on the the RCC so they could say Jesus had no brothers therefore Mark birthed no other children.