Thank you for your kindness.
Paul himself (under inspiration of God) wrote that there is no other Gospel.
There wasn't at the time of that writing. Israel, by that writing, had been cut off and the previous dispensation with its gospel of the kingdom had been set aside. Those who were saved under it prior to this happening were still under that dispensation for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) and so, the brevity of my answer gave the wrong impression here. There were not two gospels that were active at the same time but there were two groups that existed at the same time, one that was saved under the Kingdom gospel (what Paul called the gospel of circumcision) , and the other that was saved under the gospel of grace (what Paul called the gospel of uncircumcision) - (see Gal. 2:7-9).
When he says he is apostle to the Gentiles and Peter is Apostle to the Jews, he is speaking of the fact that his ministry leads him a different direction than Peter's. Much like you minister to different people than I do.
No. This ignores the entire context of the passage. If this were so, then why would Paul have needed to explain what Paul repeatedly calls "my gospel" to the Twelve Apostles? Indeed, if what you're suggesting here is so, then where was the need for Paul in the first place? The Twelve had been given the "Great Commission" and yet they agreed with this newcomer who was entirely unknown to them and who was preaching a gospel that they were not familiar with that they would forgo the great commission and stay in Jerusalem and minister the "gospel of the circumcision" to Israel and that Paul would take 'his gospel", the "gospel of circumcision" to the whole rest of the world.
A good example is evident in the current church culture. There is a popular church in our community that is hip and cool. They have a worship band, keep the lights down, and have a fog machine.
There are others that wear suits and dresses. These churchessays are very traditional. The church I pastor is more people who don't want the produced version of church nor the formality of the traditional Church.
We all preach the same Gospel of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection but we are ministering to different groups.
There is no evidence that Peter, James and John, et al. ever preached such a gospel. Salvation by faith alone apart from works is Paul's gospel. The followers of Peter, James and John were, as James puts it in Acts, "zealous for the law", as well they should have been because they came to belief in Christ under the dispensation of law.
Faith saves Gentiles and Jews. Always has and always will.
Prior to Paul it was faith plus works, as James makes very very clear.
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
While Paul teaches the opposite concerning works....
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Which explains why Paul was sent by revelation to explain "his gospel" to the Twelve. (Galatians 2:2)
To rightly divide simple means to properly handle or understand. Not to divide it into parts per Ruckman Theology.
I've never heard of Ruckman Theology but, regardless, my response here is to say simply that saying it doesn't make it so.
On the contrary, "rightly divide" does not mean to merely "handle and understand", it means to divide correctly. The original Greek is orthotomeō which literally means to "cut straight" it is a compound word "orthos" (cut) "tomos" (straight). The idea being expressed is definitely to divide or separate correctly.