Gospel Confusion...

[biblestudent78]

Yes, there are a number of traditions, all of which disagree with one another on various points, thus showing to us that they can't all be true, but they can all be false. Can we agree on that?



(grin) I've been asked many times what I am...Baptist, Lutheran, etc., etc., etc. I don't rightly know that there is a label to which I conform...other than to say that I'm a Biblicist. What about yourself?



The only restraint upon Adam and Eve was for them to abstain from eating from just one tree, with their diet being restricted to fruits, vegetables, nuts and berries. Later, in Genesis 9, that all changed to man being allowed to eat everything that moved upon the earth. Then, in Leviticus, we of Israel were restricted from eating quite a variety of animals that moved upon the earth...all of which is to say that the Lord changed the rules from time to time throughout history, including the Gospels and the requirements for salvation.



That's true, although they were not so much at odds except that they were aimed at different groupings, with the Kingdom Gospel being for Israel and the Gospel of grace for Israel and for Gentiles, with Paul preaching ONLY to those Jews and synagogues that had not yet been visited by the twelve. The Kingdom Gospel required water baptism for the remission of sins, where the Gospel of Grace laid down no such requirement upon its adherents. I agree with you that there are many different groupings, all of whom have differing focus and differing doctrines...some polar opposites of one another, which is why I have no regard for group-think and socially engineered doctrines that deviate away from what inspired scripture clearly teaches to us.



Can we agree that Paul wasn't nullifying the four items conveyed by James and the counsel, but simply arguing that, for example, the meats sacrificed to idols are nothing in and of themselves, but that doing so is an affront to some that may cause them to stumble, and that willfully doing so is an issue within the heart of the one doing so? If not, then please elaborate.



Can we agree that Paul intentionally went ONLY to us Jews and our synagogues who had not yet been under the ministry of the twelve? Can we also agree that, had the Kingdom Gospel been the exact same as the Gospel of Grace, that them crossing each other's paths in ministry would not have then been an issue? If not, then why...if you wouldn't mind expounding?

Also, Paul intentionally revealed that his ministry was indeed to the Gentiles, with him calling himself THE apostle to the Gentiles.

Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Galatians 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;

The claim they were one and the same gospel makes the above a very strange and utterly irrational statement, but, you're right, many groupings believe what is contrary to what's written. That's how they erect the walls of distinctions around themselves so that they uphold the divisions among the, various factions...as petty and pathetic as that all is.



Having been raised up in Judaism and later walking away from it as an Israeli, all our knowledge of what was and is moral and adherence to stringent and Pharisaical traditions, what is known within Judaism is meaningless in its rejection of Christ Jesus as our Messiah. That much I can state authoritatively on the basis of personal experience and understanding. My brothers and sisters have no idea of what's coming their way within the wrath of the Almighty soon coming upon this earth and mankind.

MM

Yes, there are a number of traditions, all of which disagree with one another on various points, thus showing to us that they can't all be true, but they can all be false. Can we agree on that? It has been my experience that there is social and spiritual value in all versions of Christianity. That is why we have thousands of competing "brands." Each highlights their theological virtue and demean all the others. Everybody wants to be "saved" but nobody wants to be converted.

I've been asked many times what I am...Baptist, Lutheran, etc., etc., etc. I don't rightly know that there is a label to which I conform...other than to say that I'm a Biblicist. What about yourself? I am a lifelong bible student. I was baptised at age 12 and have been a student of the bible for the past 68yrs. I attend a non-demonization church weekly. I love the worship and the people. In the last 3 yrs we have fed over 450,000 children through our volunteers. Thousand are baptised each year.

Can we agree that Paul wasn't nullifying the four items conveyed by James and the counsel, but simply arguing that, for example, the meats sacrificed to idols are nothing in and of themselves, but that doing so is an affront to some that may cause them to stumble, and that willfully doing so is an issue within the heart of the one doing so? If not, then please elaborate.

Paul, above all, wanted peace in the churches so eating meat offered to idols, including those strangled and had blood in them, was fine so long as it did not cause conflict. The admonition was about conflict resolution, not about any food restrictions.

The term "Kingdom Gospel" is not a New Testament concept. There was and is only one Gospel of Christ but witnessed from many directions by NT authors. The exact same gospel were preached first to the Jews at the Pentecost after the resurrection. Those preaching were filled with the Holy Spirit and those that repented and were baptised were added to the church numbering around 3,000.

Can we agree that Paul intentionally went ONLY to us Jews and our synagogues who had not yet been under the ministry of the twelve? Can we also agree that, had the Kingdom Gospel been the exact same as the Gospel of Grace, that them crossing each other's paths in ministry would not have then been an issue? If not, then why...if you wouldn't mind expounding?

No I can not agree that only went to the Jews first. If you remember, in Athens Paul spoke to the idol worshipers not to the Jews. Paul frequently spoke in public places and in the homes of people.

That much I can state authoritatively on the basis of personal experience and understanding. My brothers and sisters have no idea of what's coming their way within the wrath of the Almighty soon coming upon this earth and mankind.
A loving God does not come in wrath. I believe any educated Hebrew bible student understands clearly that their God has brought utter destruction on Israel in the past. Somewhere between 600,000 and 1.1 million Jews died, many of starvation and disease in the sacking of the temple in 70 AD. In the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132 AD, about 600,000 Jews were killed. Thousands were sent into permanent captivity as slaves and were permanently barred for the land for 1,812 years.

The quotes you find "strange," I interpret that was just a way of saying Paul would focus on Gentiles and Peter would focus on Jews, although Peter had already preached to a gentile family, Cornelius, at the end, in the middle of the night all were baptised.

 

[Musicmaster]

Everything you said is not Scriptural.

I guess that ends it, then. When we can't agree with what scripture says, then there's nothing left but personal opinion and wishful thinking, such as what characterizes much of historic and modern churchianity.

MM

 

[legion]

I don't think I missed anything given the differences:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 15:2-4
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:

If you will, notice what's missing: Paul, under the Gospel of Grace after the fall of Israel, said nothing here, nor in any of his other epistles, about the necessity for water baptism for the remission of sins. This major difference speaks loud volumes, does it not, to a difference in the gospels?

So, cessationism, in and of itself, fails to account for this allegedly having ceased as if the Church no longer had need of them, other than to say that the Lord chose a different direction with the fall of Israel as the portal through which Gentiles had to enter for salvation:

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Do you these things?

The twelve, who ministered to Israel, gave these commands with the ensuing promises for the stated outcomes and yet none of this is practiced as a matter of routine today nor historically among professing believers...excluding the Charismatics and their claims that are contrary to any real evidence, especially given that they still have to learn the languages of the other nations and people where they evangelize.

Additionally, I too was once of the opinion Paul was guilty for the sin of omission to not mention the necessity for water baptism for the remission of sins in his gospel message. Holy Spirit, however, dealt with me on that front after I delved deeper into his mission and the Gospel under which he operated. Many in here believe what I once believed as an indictment against Paul, but that philosophy simply fails the acid test of truth and consistency, even when I claimed Paul was merely summarizing. The claim of summarization fails in the arena of integrity for him to have left out such a crucial element of the Gospel of Grace given to him by Christ.

What are your thoughts on all the above?

MM

Well on first read I think I personally agree with it unless you're saying that baptism is necessary for salvation

 

[Musicmaster]

No I can not agree that only went to the Jews first. If you remember, in Athens Paul spoke to the idol worshipers not to the Jews. Paul frequently spoke in public places and in the homes of people.

I don't recall saying "only" in my statements. I will say, however, that Paul generally went to the synagogues first before preaching generally to Gentiles based upon the order of what Christ did as He Himself stated:

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Gentiles were dogs until that middle wall of partition was brought down and then salvation is come unto the Gentiles:

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Please notice the present tense of Paul's words. With salvation coming unto the Gentiles, present tense, that clearly shows to us that it was not available to them prior without them having to join with Israel for salvation, for how can anything come unto someone that they already had available to them?

The clarity of the inspired words escapes many people out there in the world or are intentionally overlooked in order for them to continue upholding personal whim.

A loving God does not come in wrath.

Revelation 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 15:1
And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

At His Second Coming, the world will see this:

Zechariah 12:9-10
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

My people of Israel, they will indeed watch the Lord coming in His wrath to destroy her enemies, but that's only after two thirds of us Israeli's are wiped off the face of the earth. That all is yet to come at the end of the Tribulation, prior to the Millennial Kingdom.

We, Israel, have historically been a stiff-necked people; not wanting to accept Christ nor to obey His Law. All of our woes we have brought upon ourselves because of our collective rejection of Christ Jesus as Messiah. The Lord's wrath against us and the unbelieving world is entirely merited.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Well on first read I think I personally agree with it unless you're saying that baptism is necessary for salvation

Oh, no. Not at all. Baptism is not at all a requirement for salvation under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

 

[legion]

I believe every word to be inspired by God. Words were not up to the writer, but the Holy Spirit.

Has the end come? Why not?

That doesn't change my point we see that the Holy Spirit when writing from Luke has a certain Style and when writing from Paul has a different style yet it's still the Holy Spirit so there are nuances to who the author is

 

[legion]

Oh, no. Not at all. Baptism is not at all a requirement for salvation under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

Your division among the statements about repent and be baptized or believe and be saved Etc is something that I also have noticed and I would even give credence that when John had shown up and was baptizing people it may have been that they believed that baptism was that important

Churches like the Church of Christ literally believed that the water saves when you're baptized of course they also believe that they're the chosen people of God

 

[biblestudent78]

I don't recall saying "only" in my statements. I will say, however, that Paul generally went to the synagogues first before preaching generally to Gentiles based upon the order of what Christ did as He Himself stated:

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Gentiles were dogs until that middle wall of partition was brought down and then salvation is come unto the Gentiles:

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Please notice the present tense of Paul's words. With salvation coming unto the Gentiles, present tense, that clearly shows to us that it was not available to them prior without them having to join with Israel for salvation, for how can anything come unto someone that they already had available to them?

The clarity of the inspired words escapes many people out there in the world or are intentionally overlooked in order for them to continue upholding personal whim.

Revelation 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 15:1
And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

At His Second Coming, the world will see this:

Zechariah 12:9-10
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

My people of Israel, they will indeed watch the Lord coming in His wrath to destroy her enemies, but that's only after two thirds of us Israeli's are wiped off the face of the earth. That all is yet to come at the end of the Tribulation, prior to the Millennial Kingdom.

We, Israel, have historically been a stiff-necked people; not wanting to accept Christ nor to obey His Law. All of our woes we have brought upon ourselves because of our collective rejection of Christ Jesus as Messiah. The Lord's wrath against us and the unbelieving world is entirely merited.

MM

So now we are leaving biblical scholarship and jumping to "proof texts." There is no possible intellectual connection be between Zechariah and Revelation. This is the game of the spin the wheel or Google the wheel to claim that two texts dissociated by hundreds of years, cultures and purposes, addressing different issues and in no way associated with each other provide a "valid" framework for understanding a beloved textural framework not of you choosing. This the anti hermaniticule tool of apologetics not scholarship.

Pick one. Being a "defender of a theological tradition" or claiming a scholarly rendering of scripture where scripture is allowed to speak for it's self without any predetermined allegiance to some theological theory. Let the texts talk to us in their context without assuming your favorite theological theories. Here you are failing.

If we make no pretext that the scriptures provide complex revelation then we are free to invent any theology we care to support. However, it has nothing to do with the God Given Message you chose to conflate.
Your original question hides a predetermined outcome.. Do not ask question just to overlay the responses to canonize your particular theology.

Honest inquiry is alway appreciated. Straw men ideology, not so much.

 

[Musicmaster]

Your division among the statements about repent and be baptized or believe and be saved Etc is something that I also have noticed and I would even give credence that when John had shown up and was baptizing people it may have been that they believed that baptism was that important

Churches like the Church of Christ literally believed that the water saves when you're baptized of course they also believe that they're the chosen people of God

When I read in scripture that the Israelites had to be water baptized for the remission of their sins, that does indeed elicit the understanding that, without the remittance of sin, no sinner could be saved. So, contrary to some beliefs out there among Evangelicals, we Israelites, who (back then) were still bound under the Law as Jesus and James both showed to us, the word of water baptism was indeed a standing req1uirement at that time until the fall of Israel.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

So now we are leaving biblical scholarship and jumping to "proof texts." There is no possible intellectual connection be between Zechariah and Revelation.

Scholarship? I have a Th.D, and I still reject numerous of the popularly held beliefs among many of my colleagues. If you believe there's no connection in the events portrayed within Zechariah and Revelation, then you're free to believe that. I have no problem with that. Please rest assured that I'm not here to take from anyone what they want to believe. I explained by position based upon scholastic means and almost half a century of study, and with this being a non-essential, it matters not at all what each person believes about it. I still love all who disagree with me.

This is the game of the spin the wheel or Google the wheel to claim that two texts dissociated by hundreds of years, cultures and purposes, addressing different issues and in no way associated with each other provide a "valid" framework for understanding a beloved textural framework not of you choosing. This the anti hermaniticule tool of apologetics not scholarship.

Again, my background in Judaism and biblical studies spanning from Genesis to Revelation, much of which my fellow Israelis reject, I'm not phased by a contrived disassociation on the basis of time and authors as you appear to be steeped within. Again, its ok. I don't mind that we disagree.

Pick one. Being a "defender of a theological tradition" or claiming a scholarly rendering of scripture where scripture is allowed to speak for it's self without any predetermined allegiance to some theological theory. Let the texts talk to us in their context without assuming your favorite theological theories. Here you are failing.

I'm also a firm believer in 1 John 2:27. We're not left here to wallow around in pseudo-scholastic quagmires of land mines wrapped in intellectual colorings of human perceptions. Our having direct access to the Author Himself coupled with promises for His enlightenment of the mind and heart of the seeker, that's led me to rely less upon my scholastic background and more upon walking and thinking in the Spirit.

If we make no pretext that the scriptures provide complex revelation then we are free to invent any theology we care to support. However, it has nothing to do with the God Given Message you chose to conflate.
Your original question hides a predetermined outcome.. Do not ask question just to overlay the responses to canonize your particular theology.

Honest inquiry is alway appreciated. Straw men ideology, not so much.

All our questions are rooted in predetermined thoughts about the given topic. None of us is immune to that charge, including yourself.

I ask questions because I want to learn if there's something I've missed as revealed through the words of others who may be hearing from the Author more than I have on the given topic. I'm not a scholastic stoic who has fallen into that ditch of "can't teach an old man new tricks" syndrome. I too am still learning while seeking after the fullness of the stature of Christ.

MM

 

[legion]

When I read in scripture that the Israelites had to be water baptized for the remission of their sins, that does indeed elicit the understanding that, without the remittance of sin, no sinner could be saved. So, contrary to some beliefs out there among Evangelicals, we Israelites, who (back then) were still bound under the Law as Jesus and James both showed to us, the word of water baptism was indeed a standing req1uirement at that time until the fall of Israel.

MM

Well let me qualify my statement baptism is not a requirement for salvation within the context of Christianity I am in no way trying to speak on behalf of Judaism. This is Christian chat so the assumption would be that it's related to Christians

 

[TruthDefender]

Your division among the statements about repent and be baptized or believe and be saved Etc is something that I also have noticed and I would even give credence that when John had shown up and was baptizing people it may have been that they believed that baptism was that important

Churches like the Church of Christ literally believed that the water saves when you're baptized of course they also believe that they're the chosen people of God

It absolutely essential!

-"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen." Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV

-"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:15-16 NKJV

-"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."" Acts 2:38-39 NKJV

-"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Galatians 3:27-29 NKJV

How many verses do you need before your realize that it’s a command?

 

[TruthDefender]

When I read in scripture that the Israelites had to be water baptized for the remission of their sins, that does indeed elicit the understanding that, without the remittance of sin, no sinner could be saved. So, contrary to some beliefs out there among Evangelicals, we Israelites, who (back then) were still bound under the Law as Jesus and James both showed to us, the word of water baptism was indeed a standing req1uirement at that time until the fall of Israel.

MM

Just curious, are you Jewish? If so, knowing God’s anger against Israel, why do you hang on to this?

 

[legion]

It absolutely essential!

-"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen." Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV

-"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:15-16 NKJV

-"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."" Acts 2:38-39 NKJV

-"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Galatians 3:27-29 NKJV

How many verses do you need before your realize that it’s a command?

The problem with that argument is there are plenty of statements that do not include it including the infamous John 3:16

However I have no dog in that fight so it's an irrelevant point to me, not to mention I've been baptized

 

[TruthDefender]

The problem with that argument is there are plenty of statements that do not include it including the infamous John 3:16

However I have no dog in that fight so it's an irrelevant point to me, not to mention I've been baptized

Aren’t the apostles our example? Wasn’t Jesus our example? We were told to do things according to the pattern, and that they are our examples. Yes?

You don’t argue with the verses that don’t have it! You discuss the ones that do!! We actually only need one, besides.
Acts 2:38-39

 

[legion]

Aren’t the apostles our example? Wasn’t Jesus our example? We were told to do things according to the pattern, and that they are our examples. Yes?

Yes but that token if we're supposed to be following Jesus and we should be both Jewish and the carpenter it just doesn't wash with me well I do believe that communion and baptism are commanded of us as Christians I simply do not attach baptism as a Protestant Christian to Salvation

 

[TruthDefender]

Yes but that token if we're supposed to be following Jesus and we should be both Jewish and the carpenter it just doesn't wash with me well I do believe that communion and baptism are commanded of us as Christians I simply do not attach baptism as a Protestant Christian to Salvation

Ok, so it sounds like you’re holding onto non Scriptural views and traditions of a different doctrine.

This is why so many people have trouble understanding Scripture, because many verses just don’t fit their framework of understanding (it doesn’t fit their doctrine). Wrong foundation.

 

[Musicmaster]

Well let me qualify my statement baptism is not a requirement for salvation within the context of Christianity I am in no way trying to speak on behalf of Judaism. This is Christian chat so the assumption would be that it's related to Christians

You didn't read what I actually said. Water baptism WAS required for Israel. The twelve apostles ministered that requirement ONLY to Israel through Peter in Acts 2 after the ascension of Christ and after Pentecost. Peter was not the minister to the Gentiles nor to the body of Christ. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, which today is the body of Christ, of which I am a part. I agree with you that water baptism is no longer required for salvation, but at one time it was, only for Israel.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Just curious, are you Jewish? If so, knowing God’s anger against Israel, why do you hang on to this?

The real question is why you didn't read what I have actually stated. I am not hanging onto Judaism at all, if that's what you are alluding to in your question.

MM

 

[JimiSurvivor]

James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

From your reference to the "singular gospel gang" I gather you are one of those who believes the that there are TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS - one of which was taught by Peter and was meant for Gentiles while the other which Paul taught that was meant for the Gentiles. However, there is no need for different gospels since both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the same savior bearing the same message.
Paul said: 16 I am not ashamed of THE gospel, because it is THE power of God for salvation to EVERYONE who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. 17 For THE gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will LIVE by faith.”…(Romans 1:16)
THE "gospel" Paul was speaking of WAS SINGULAR and that ONE gospel had sufficient power to save both Jews and Gentiles.

At that time, a group called the "Judaizers" were teaching that in addition to obeying the Messianic call to repentance and faith, new covenant believers ALSO had to adopt certain practices of Judaism in order to be saved. Paul classified what they said as a "DIFFERENT" gospel, one which was a distortion of the truth and was "really NO GOSPEL at all."

6I am amazed how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 WHICH IS NOT EVEN A GOSPEL Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to DISTORT the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!…
(Galatians 1:6-7)
This is strong language meant to be taken seriously. I find little difference between the Judaizer's distorted message than the one which tells people that repenting of their sins sin and putting their faith in Jesus Christ to save them is not enough but we must go on to keep Shabbat.

The term "good news" is a reference to a Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 52:
6Therefore My people will know My name; therefore ON THAT DAY [the day Messiah appears] they will know that I am He who speaks. Here I am!” 7How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim PEACE, who bring good tidings, who proclaim SALVATION, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!”
(Isaiah 52:6-7)
The proclamation about God's reigning refers to the manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Israel was expecting to see Messiah's kingdom take over the nations by force but Messiah said: “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs.
21Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”…
(Luke 17:19-21)
The Kingdom was there in their midst in the person of the Messiah.