Back to your challenge:

"Since you say they are preached the same, perhaps you could show me the 12 preaching Christ crucified as GOOD News."

Acts 2.  In particular verse 3:38-39.  Forgiveness of sins seems like pretty good news to me.  If not, what is Romans 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 about.

Jesus' death and resurrection seem to form an important part of Peter's message in 4:10-12.   Incidentally, Jesus' death and resurrection forms an important part of Paul's message- 1 Cor 15 (all of it). 

Acts 10:39-43 would again seem to indicate that the crucifixion is good news in the mind of Peter.

I stopped scanning here, and decided to jump to a different apostle.

1 John 2:1-2 speaks of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.  This sacrifice, without a question, was the crucifixion, and John obviously thinks the forgiveness that resulted is very good news.

I think you need to clarify what you meant by this:

Oh my, this late in the game and Jews Paul went to were still under the law. Do you think Paul had it all wrong and that those Jews he went to were Not under the law? And did you notice, he went to those not under the law as well?

He didn't say they just thought they were under the law either.

Hmmm, what would you like to do now, find some early Historic Christian teachings to use against the scriptures?

You clearly think you've won a real zinger but I see nothing here resembling an argument I need to deal with.   I have the feeling that this is some sort of proof-text from within the dispensationalist mindset that makes perfect sense to people who already think that way, but not having that mindset myself, I find the argument being made here unfathomable, especially in light of the full context of the passage, which you did not provide, but I recommend to any lurker, in particular 9:22-23, which says:

"I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.  I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

So, for the sake of the gospel, Paul 'becomes as a Jew.'  But he also becomes weak (see Romans 15:1-2 for the likely principle at work).  He does all these things for the sake of a single gospel.  Even for the Jew, he is acting for the sake of the gospel, but by your telling the Jew receives a different message altogether, so the 'gospel' would not be relevant to them.

I'm really at a loss about what you think you're demonstrating out of this passage.  I certainly see no reason why the historic Christian church needs to lift a finger to adjust its theology.  The passage isn't even talking about this issue.  The passage is talking about the lengths that Paul will go to save the lost.

Even if the Jew remains under the law, the Jew in question, like every one else Paul is talking about in this passage, are currently NOT CHRISTIANS.  That's why he's becoming everything to all people, in order that he may save some- for the sake of the gospel.  So, the passage still wouldn't help you, as what we need to know is whether or not a Jewish Christian would be under a different message or not.  This passage does not help, as in the first place he indicates he is serving the gospel in his dealings with all- even the Jew- but in the second place, he doesn't otherwise indicate the message he brings to any of them, only that 'them' in all cases are currently unsaved.

We'd have to believe, by you reasoning (which I admit, I'm straining here to try to imagine, because I simply don't know what you're aiming at), that Paul also has a different message for the slave, for the Jew, for the weak, for those 'under the law', and for those who aren't.  That's a lot of gospels! 

Well two big holes that I have noticed are -
For the Rapture - the parable the wheat and the tears, and Jesus' explanation of it. It appears to contradict the rapture.
For dispensationalism - Israel is no longer God's chosen people. The church is Abraham's offspring. For flesh descendents of Abraham to be inheritors of the blessings, they have to believe in Jesus, his messiahship, and his atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
That is what I can think of off the top of my head.

IF I may, I might be able to add to sntj's thoughts here...

I guess one could say that the cornerstone of dispensationalism (seperation of Jew and Gentile) is the historical record of confusion found in Galations... where Paul had to confront Peter.

IF I read that book properly... and understood it properly (which I think I did, of course :) ) then Paul is saying to Peter..

(My paraphrase)

"Peter, dude, you are being a hypocrite.  You preach the same gospel as me but I live up to the gospel and at this time and place and circumstance, you are NOT.  What is going on dude???"

"In my mind dude, perhaps this is why the CHURCH authority (which was already made up of a collective faith of Jews and Gentiles by the way) made me the voice to the Gentile nations????"

(End of my silly paraphrase)

I brought this up before a while ago.  Jesus commanded the original Jewish disciple to take this message to the world. 

Me wonders if Jesus already knew that even his blessed disciples would fail and so had to raise up Paul to take the one gospel to the rejects.

Just a thought

Z

One part for example is Israel, for example, a dispensationalist would have me believe that Israel and the Jews are God's chosen people, all the land of Israel belongs to the Jews by inheritance, and prophecy in the OT only apply to Israel and the church is God's "Oh Crap bar" in effect. None of those points are biblical, but it appears that the people who hold those points are the ones who are making the rules of the game.
Then for rapture, several assumptions are made that require injecting meaning into the bible instead of letting the bible speak for itself. The first is that people can come to faith on there own. Second, is peoples inherent goodness/or God's really low standard.
Just to name off some points.