I don't need you to tell me what ad hom means. You resorted to ad hom when you wrote:

<<Christian textual critics, who have little in common with Christians except they like to denigrate the Faith with clever textual punditry.>>

This is both false and a weak attempt to discredit an entire academic discipline with conspiracy theory.

The evidence forcefully suggests Paul was apocalyptic. As I mentioned recently, the earliest Christian textual witness, 1 Thessalonians, was written in part to assuage converts' anxieties about recently deceased loved ones who were expected to witness the Day of the Lord in their lifetimes.

If you want to argue Paul wasn't apocalyptic, go to town. It's certainly an eccentric position.