Bernard Muller

According to Acts and the Paulines, at that point, Paul & Barnabas had gone only in Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus and southern Galatia, altogether a small portion of the Roman empire. There was no second second time: Paul & Barnabas separated.
Paul also went to preach in Jerusalem and Damascus, northern Galatia, around the Aegean sea and in Rome (dubiously). Not all over the Roman empire, by a long stretch. Missing in the whole African part, from Egypt to Morocco, the western part (except for allegedly Rome), and area in the eastern part, mostly in the North.
Here is the map of Paul's world (and I have been very generous)

aa5874

I have not heard of a world TOUR that included every village of every country in the world.

You are really wasting time.

Paul and his companions went a TOUR of the Roman Empire and went ALL over the place at least twice.

I t is NOT necessary for Paul and his companions to have visited every village or every country in the Roman Empire to be all over the Roman Empire.

It is claimed in Apologetic sources that Paul was in Arabia, Spain, Britain, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Collosse, Thessalonica, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Syria, Cilicia and Damascus.

Sheshbazzar

Apparently not generous enough.

'Paul's' own words;
There is a lot of territory between Galatia and Spain.

Bernard Muller

That was his intention, but there is nothing in Acts or the Paulines saying he went there.
Chances are he did not go farther than Rome, if he ever went that far.

I did not say Paul had to preach in every village and every country in the Roman empire but saying Paul went all over the Roman Empire, once or twice, is a lie. Certainly not according to Paul's epistles and Acts.
If I visited extensively the US, but only the US, with one trip to Rio de Janeiro, I would be lying if I would say I went all over the Americas.

So now you are trusting all apologetic sources when it is to your benefit. Are they hostile witnesses? Double standards again.
According to Paulines and Acts, as far as preaching is concerned, you have to scrap Arabia, Spain & Britain. But you can add Cyprus and Crete (very dubious).

aa5874

Well, Paul would be a LIAR if he did NOT go throughout the WHOLE World because this statement is found in the Pauline writings.

Romans 1:8 KJV

Bernard Muller

to aa,
What is the connection with where Paul preached?

Duvduv

It is rather interesting that Chrysostom was in Antioch when he wrote his homilies which included the time when Jerome was in Antioch, and yet Jerome says nothing about Acts being unknown as far as I can tell.

Ambrose was a contemporary in Milan and also evidently does not use the non-use of Acts as an excuse to be a salesman for Paul.

And Augustine was converted in Milan by Ambrose and was a younger contemporary, but never mentioned this issue either.

However, if none of these other doctors of the Church gave any written consideration of Acts (and I haven't managed to find anything online), then this suggests that it was really unknown (despite its introduction connecting it to GLuke). This is despite the fact that they knew about GLuke and all followed along the idea that Luke was the companion of Paul.

And how much could commentaries about Paul have said if virtually nothing was known about him - i.e. Jerome on Galatians, Ephesians?

aa5874

Romans 1.8 clearly shows that even the Pauline writer used a phrase "throughout the whole world" but could NOT have likely meant every single vilage, and every single country of the known world.

Sheshbazzar

And equally, there is nothing in Acts or the Paulines saying that he didn't go there.

And what early Christian testimony exists supports that he did go to Spain.

Everyone, the Pope included, could vote on it, but the results would still be as empty of any validity as the claim is either way.

A bit irrelevant to me, as I believe that 'Paul' and his 'story' are latter Christian fabrications created by interpolations and extreme editing of earlier Jewish documents. 'Paul' as we have him, is a fabricated Christian fiction.

aa5874

In my research I have found that all sources that mentioned Paul are either fraudulent, fiction or forgeries.

For example, Acts of the Apostles has been deduced to be written well AFTER the Fall of Jewish Temple c 70 CE yet the author did NOT include the death of Paul nor the the death of Peter whom the the Church claimed were MARTYRED under Nero c 68 CE.

The author of Acts included the supposed MARTYRDOM of Stephen [Acts 7.59] and the MARTYRDOM of James the brother of John [Acts 12.2].

It is clear that the author of Acts implied that Acts of the Apostles was composed when Paul was still alive and before c 68 CE.

The first apologetic source to identify a book called Acts of the Apostles and to identify the author of Acts is "Against Heresies" which is a massive forgery.

Paul of Tarsus is a fabricated character introduced to give the impression that there were APOSTLES of a character Jesus before c 68 CE when there were NO Apostles and NO character called Jesus Christ.