Would you say that Paul received new revelations from the Lord, so that the Gospel according to Paul is different from the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? If so, is this a possible partial explanation for mainline christianity’s difficulty with EU?
Jesus tells His disciples “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” and promises that the Holy Spirit will reveal these things to them at the right time. Paul claimed to have received that revelation, and as far as we can tell, the other apostles agreed with this claim.
So the gospel according to Paul was not so much different as it was MORE. Jesus preached only to the Jews; that was who He was sent to. He sent His disciples into all the world – which was always where God had designed that Israel should go – and finally DID go, in the twelve and also (especially) in Paul.
Paul says a lot of things that are blatantly universalistic – but so does Jesus: If I be lifted up, I will draw ALL people to Myself. The Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost (did He fail?) Assuredly I say to you, he will not be released until he has paid the uttermost farthing (imo; has forgiven his fellows as required). Of course Jesus also says some things that appear to us, and in our translations, at first glance to warn of never-ending hell. BUT if Jesus really did say those things and if He really did mean them in the way He seems to have meant them in our translations and in our culture, then we need to believe Jesus as opposed to Paul.
That said, I believe a “few” liberties have been taken with Jesus’ words by well-meaning translators who forgot to remove their ECT sunglasses when they were translating/paraphrasing (because ALL translation is necessarily paraphrasing). “I know this, and therefore, He must have meant that, when He said this other thing.” It doesn’t help, either, that back in the days of the earlier translations, translators actually had to guess – I mean GUESS at quite a few of the words. Today, with more years of linguistic research at our disposal, we don’t guess quite as much (though still we guess SOME). HOWEVER, most “new” translations depend heavily on older works and only concentrate on a few changes and cosmetic updating of language. It’s kind of like science textbooks in elementary schools. They’re seldom updated in anything like a timely manner as science “changes its mind”.
My musings, for what that’s worth. 
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Carrots: I do think Paul had some different revelations from God because Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles. God has a sense of irony. Here we have Paul, formerly Saul, a proud Pharisee of Israel, sent to the Gentiles.
I am not sure if Paul actually had a Gospel—most of what is in the NT from him is letters to assorted churces. I think we have to consider his different audience when reading Paul’s letters. He was also writing about living as a Christian, where the Gospels were more about Jesus’s life, teachings and His death and ressurection.
I agree with Cindy about Jesus as the primary source and also about the difficulty with translations. He also did a lot of teaching via parables, which may or may not actually be intended to deal with life after death. I think sometimes we get take the wrong messages from some of His parables because we are not His original audience. He Himself said His ministry was to Israel. Of course, then He helped every Gentile He encountered, but his words were for Israel of that time and culture.
Thanks, Cindy and Lizabeth for your responses. Both of you raised the interesting subject of Bible Translation. Today I was reading Acts 12, and I decided to look at Acts 12:19 in Greek. Whereas the NIV reads, “Herod - - - cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed,” and the NAB reads, “Herod - - - ordered the guards tried and executed,” Young’s Literal Translation reads, “Herod - - - did command [them] to be led away to punishment.”
“Execution” - “Punishment.” Whatever! 
Which Bible Translations do you prefer? Presently, I prefer the New American Bible (NAB) since it does not have the word “Hell” in it (and I get the Apocrypha free!). However, as you see in the above example, its translation is also an interpretation.
Hi, Carrots
Every translation is at its foundation a paraphrase. It has to be – that’s just the nature of translating anything from one language to another.
I like the “literal” translations: Youngs, MLT, CLV, Rotherham, Jonathan Mitchel NT . . . there are probably more. I have so many tabs on my e-sword bible window that I can’t even remember. But I have yet to get around to reading the Apocrypha. 
The passage you mention is a good example of translation that becomes interpretation. The translator “knows” that the punishment will be death, so he calls it execution. Or perhaps in this case, the word translated could mean either lethal or non-lethal punishment – I haven’t looked at it. It could even be that the word means execution but the third translator didn’t like to say that in so many words so he just said “punishment.” There’s a place to use the Strongs (which nevertheless also has its weaknesses!)
There is only one gospel.
Mark tells us that “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” started with John the Baptizer. John announced that “The Kingdom of God” was about to appear — and it did appear with Jesus Christ. John preached repentance, baptism, and doing deeds of righteousness which fit with repentance. Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” Right in the midst of the scribes and Pharisees, was the King (Jesus) and His subjects (the disciples). The Kingdom had come! Then the Kingdom would grow, and will culminate when all the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of God and His Messiah forever. The apostles also announced the Kingdom of God.
The Gospel According to John the Baptizer
According to John the Baptizer, there were two requirements necessary to become a member of the Kingdom:
1.Repent
2.Be baptized. The end or purpose of baptism was the affirmation of one’s decision, the entrance into the door of salvation, and the beginning of the process of sending sin out of one’s life, and thus the bearing of fruit that is worthy of repentance.
The Gospel According to Jesus
*Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.*
Jesus proclaimed the same requirements! Repent and be baptized. The Greek word translated “repent” literally means to have a change of mind.
The Gospel According to Peter
After Peter had addressed the men of Judea, showing that God had raised Jesus from the death, and that they had crucified Him, the following exchange took place:
*Acts 2:36-39
“… Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the sending away of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” *
What were Peter’s requirements to appropriate the benefits of the Gospel? Repent and be baptized! The only difference was that now that Jesus had been raised, the gift of His Spirit was given.
Now some claim that John the baptizer and Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, but that the apostle Paul opened the new order of the Church by preaching the gospel of grace. C.I. Scofield, in his notes on Matthew 5:5 went so far as to affirm
In other words, it is neither the duty nor even the privilege of the Christian to obey the laws of Christ expressed in those chapters.
Scofield taught that Christ’s teachings in the “Sermon on the Mount” were the laws of the kingdom offered to the Jews, but that since the Jews rejected the kingdom it was to be postponed. Such teachers declare that now that we are under grace, we should listen to Paul, for the words of Christ no longer apply to us who live in the age of grace.
But as Paul made abundantly clear, there is only one gospel. That one gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom and Paul himself preached it!
The Gospel According to Paul
Acts 28:30,31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.
But did Paul declare the necessity of repentance, as did John the Baptizer, Jesus, and Peter? Or did he teach that all that is necessary is to believe in the atoning work of Christ? In recounting to King Agrippa, his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he concluded by saying,
Acts 26:19,20 "Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.
Does Paul’s gospel not resemble that proclaimed by John the baptizer? Yes, Paul preached repentance, and doing deeds worthy of repentance. But did Paul proclaim the necessity of baptism? We read:
Acts 18: 8 …many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
It was after they heard Paul that they were baptized. The necessity of baptism must have been implicit or explicit in Paul’s message. Otherwise, why would they get baptized? So Paul’s gospel not only “resembled” that of John the Baptizer; it was identical! But is baptism really necessary in order to get right with God? Let’s look at the life of Paul himself. When were his sins washed away? Was it on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him, and he submitted? That experience certainly turned him around. He was blinded, and was then ready to do what the Lord Jesus told him to do. But later, it was Ananias who counseled him to be baptized. From Paul’s own account of the matter, Ananias said:
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
So it was not when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, but at his baptism that Paul had his sins washed away.
Jesus taught:
John 3:5 Truly, truly, I tell you, unless one is generated of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Although there is much controversy about the meaning of “generated of water”, many understand it to be baptism. This view is consistent with Justin Martyr’s explanation of the ways of Christians to Augustus Caesar and to his son. Justin was born in 110 A.D. In chapter 61 of Justin’s “First Apology”, we find his explanation of Christian baptism:
What About John 3:16 and Acts 16:29-31…?
Acts 16:29-31 And he (the Philippian jailer) called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Do these passages contradict the requirements Jesus and Peter gave for becoming right with God? Do they require something less to be saved? So often today, we hear that all you have to do to get right with God is “accept Christ as your personal Saviour”. That’s a phrase we don’t find in any New Testament or early Christian writing. Or all you have to do is pray “God be merciful to me a sinner”, or “I realize I’m a sinner, Jesus, and that you died to save me. I hereby accept your finished work to make me fit for heaven.” Or some other prayer.
I recall a woman from my local area (we’ll call her “G” who affirmed that she would not become a Christian, because she just didn’t want to have to come to the front of a church and weep and cry.
Some time later, G told me that she found out from her Christian friend that a person doesn’t have to come forward, weeping and crying. “All you have to do,” G explained, “is say a little prayer, and you’ll be a Christian.” That’s the way G understood the “gospel” which was presented to her. One wonders how many people have “said the little prayer” and remained unchanged, but are under the delusion that they are now “saved”, so that they can go on living their lives as usual, but with the expectation that they’ll go to heaven when they die, or when they are raised again to life.
So, it is said that all we have to do is believe in Jesus. However, the whole crux of the matter lies in that little word Πιστευω (pisteuō) which has been translated “believe”. Indeed, the word does mean “believe” in many contexts. But another meaning is given in John’s account of Jesus’ life:
John 2:23-25 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
Is not “entrust” also the way the word is used in John 3:16 and Acts 16:29-31? If we entrust ourselves to Jesus, this includes repentance and baptism. “For God so loved the world … that whoever should entrust himself to Him would have lasting life.”
Yes the Gospel of Paul is very different.
“Now I, brethren, if I am still heralding circumcision, why am I still being persecuted”? Gal. 5.11
The gospel of the Kingdom did concern, repentance, baptism, and doing deeds of righteousness. Yet Paul says “For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law” Ro. 3.28
As someone that has never been baptized (and never shall be) my question for Paidion: Why exactly is it necessary for me to be baptized in order to be 'justified?
Does Paul say?
A) “Yet to him who is not working, yet is believing on Him Who is justifying the irreverent, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.” OR
B) “Yet to him who is working, and not just believing on Him Who is justifying the repentant, his work is reckoned for righteousness”
You mention, Paidion:
“Some time later, G told me that she found out from her Christian friend that a person doesn’t have to come forward, weeping and crying. “All you have to do,” G explained, “is say a little prayer, and you’ll be a Christian.” That’s the way G understood the “gospel” which was presented to her.”
Yet, Paidion, Not even a prayer is needed. This adds to the gospel of grace!
Puddy