I am just going to quickly wrap up, not that I have as yet responded to all of your concerns. Tonight I just want to sit back and watch some television, with a cold beer in my hands. However concerning Paul first speaking to the Jews, and then going to the gentiles, I agree with you. Remember Israel was not set aside until the end of Acts. Concerning my statement that Paul took Titus as an example and test case, I stand by what I said… I just don’t believe It was an accident that Paul took along Titus. Thank you so much for your article, and I really hope if anyone is following this thread that you will remain open minded.
God bless
Puddy
Most certainly! 
I had meant to add something to the effect that I’m not necessarily against the idea of two evangels in principle, depending on what it amounts to in practice (aside from the question of exegetical evidence for or against it); but alas I was in a hurry and thought I had already included it earlier in the post. Sorry.
I should have time soon to look over and consider your reply; thank you for your work on it. 
No problem. My style is not so polished. I need to learn how to highlight quotes, as well as to not lose my work.
I think using Wi-Fi is part of the problem, and then I rush my writing. You did pack quite abit in your article. You offer quite a challenge.
Puddy
I thought I better respond to another point Jason made in his article, since I notice people are still reading this thread. Here is his earlier statement.
“Paul is admittedly concerned that after fourteen years he may have altered something in accord with what he believed (v.2) to be a revelation (since even if an angel out of heaven should bring a different gospel than that which was received, this should be considered anathema), thus that he might have been racing or have run into nothing. Paul is doing the properly self-critical thing and checking with the other apostles for agreement on the evangel.”
Here is the full verse in question “Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations, yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught.” Gal.2.2
Now please think about this for a moment. Does the Apostle Paul ever hesitate? Does he ever hint that he has doubt about his teachings? He actually conversed with the glorified Lord. The Lord was his teacher.
It was Paul who withstood Peter to the face. Gal. 2.11. If anything it was Peter that had difficulty with the teachings of Paul, not the other way around. 2 Peter 3.16. There is no indication, that Paul was concerned with the accuracy of his message. After 14 years he better have had it figured out!
What Paul did to save his ministry, was sidestep his numerous detracters and take his message to the leading brethren. If he got their official approval, it could help hold off the more immature believers from attacking his ministry.
Peter got the basics of what Paul was saying.
A brief reply to the brief followup (until I have time and energy and inclination to work on the larger prior followup):
Yes, when I think about the portion bolded above, that involves hesitancy and a self-critical caution in case he had been teaching wrongly among the nations. Which is why I wrote what I did.
Had Paul been totally certain that he had been teaching correctly he would have proclaimed it openly without even the slightest concern that he had been or still was running for nothing.
No reason to “sidestep” anyone and take it to the leading brethren in private for their official approval, if he thought he didn’t need their agreement and approval. The concern lest he had been or current was running for nothing, is not primarily a concern of confidence in the face of mere detractors: Paul humbly and with proper self-criticism acknowledged the technical possibility that he had been deceived and double-checked to make sure he was in agreement with the other apostles.
Once he did that, then of course he could also use that agreement as ammunition against his detractors.
Which is aside from the question of whether Paul was preaching a different evangel to the Gentiles than what was being preached to the Jews.
At the time, Peter agreed with whatever Paul was doing, which could have been to preach a different evangel to the Gentiles or which could have been preaching the same evangel to both Jews and Gentiles. Later Peter bent to pressure and was criticized by Paul (as I noted above) on grounds that in effect Peter was behaving as if there was a different evangel for Jews than for Gentiles; from which I infer (in conjunction with other grounds) that there was not supposed to be two evangels, one for Jews and one for Gentiles.
Meaning that when Paul reported the content of his preaching in Jerusalem and received approval from other apostles, the agreement had involved an assurance that Paul was preaching the same evangel as they were preaching.
Thank you for your reply.
I feel a need to clarify. If I use strong words it is not personal on my part. I really don’t buy the argument that Paul lacked certainty concerning what he taught. You seem to assume that Paul’s words “lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught.”, must be in relation to himself, rather than to the results of his labour.
The very same mistake is made when Christians take his words “For to me to be living is Christ, and to be dying, gain.” and force the thought into it of his own ‘gain’ as it’s meaning. Well whose gain is Paul talking about? What is the context of that passage? It is the same with this passage. What is the context of this passage? Why did Paul write this letter to the Galatians? Can we really blame the Galatians, if they were doubting Paul’s message, yet Paul himself had doubts previously?
Still we read that Paul acted both in accord with a ‘revelation’ (Gal. 2.2) and in response to those that came down from Judea. THIS IS THE REASON FOR PAUL GOING UP TO JERUSALEM. Acts 15 gives us further details “And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, “If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved.” (This was true of their gospel) Now as Paul and Barnabas come to have NO SLIGHT COMMOTION AND QUESTIONING WITH THEM, they (the brethren) prescribe that Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them are to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this question.” Acts. 15.1-2
It is concerning the issue of circumcision that Paul goes up to Jerusalem. This makes what Paul says in Galations. 2:3-5 quite significant, “But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised. Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us–to whom, NOT EVEN FOR AN HOUR DO WE SIMULATE BY SUBJECTION, THAT THE TRUTH OF THE EVANGEL SHOULD BE CONTINUING WITH YOU.”
The reason I emboldened certain words in these two quotations is to show the reader that Paul had no doubts about his message, and the freedom they have in Christ Jesus. These words are very plain.
Both previously when Paul related his story to Peter 1:18, and now when he submitted his evangel in Jerusalem, he imparts something to them, rather than being on the learning end.
In case people doubt that the apostles and elders held to circumcision for salvation, just listen to what takes place! “Now coming along into Jerusalem, they were received by the ecclesia and the apostles and the elders. Besides, they inform them of whatever God does with them. Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who BELIEVED rise up, saying that they MUST be circumcised, besides charging them to KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES. (here is where it gets interesting) Now the apostles and the elders were gathered to see about this matter. Now, there coming to be MUCH QUESTIONING, rising, Peter…”
Why much questioning concerning Paul’s message and ministry, if the apostles and elders did not themselves agree with the words "from the sect of the Pharisees who have BELIEVED? (At least concerning themselves). The much questioning arose, because they recognized Paul was claiming a distinct message, free from circumcision and the law.
This also explains Paul’s comments “But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised” Surely Titus was the test case. If Paul got the approval of the leading brethren, Titus would be a living example of their freedom in Christ. Paul certainly uses him as an example, when he defends the distinctiveness of his apostleship, and gospel before the Galatians who were so swiftly transferred away from grace.
It is little wonder that Paul went privately to the leading brethren. Here is what Jim Coram says concerning the matter “Paul was well aware that Peter and James were by no means free from the influences of the circumcisionist party, those who sought to impose the law on the believers of the nations. So Paul constrains these “pillars” to express a definite opinion on this question to him privately, before any further influence from such zealots could be brought to bear upon them. Then, when gathered in assembly together with the circumcisionists, they freely affirmed in public what they had already assured Paul of privately, that they agreed that the law was not to be imposed on the nations (Acts 15:10; 15:19-21)”. Pg. 120 Unsearchable Riches, volume 87, number 3, May, 1996
We see Paul’s actions verified from the events mentioned in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter became timid from “the coming of some from James” before this he ate together with the nations, but we read “Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also play the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy”
We see the Galatians ‘falling from grace’ and in 2 Timothy the near complete rejection of the Apostle Paul. Possibly even by Titus himself. 4.10. Getting an official approval in Jeruselam, did not so much as save his ministry, but kept it going a little while longer. (So it seems to me)
Blessings
Puddy
Here is an interesting video. I really do not know the speaker, but was generally happy with His message on the two gospels. m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=5AxAou-P … AxAou-Pn6g It is encouraging to see It being taught by someone more mainstream than myself. His name is Les Feldick. Enjoy!