Adding the IO stuff back in gives a mic drop. I am sufficiently prepared to handle any noise from their camp. Thank you!

I read about 90% of the comments until my brain simply refused to keep reading. Don’t know what you got paid but doubt it was worth all your time (going on 6 years!!!).

To the IO folks: I really tried to digest your position, here’s what I walked away with: there are thousands and thousands of different Christian churches today because they all have different readings/interpretations of the Bible. Many think they’re right and everyone else is wrong. This IO stuff is just the latest one. You might be right in your head, but so are a billion bickering convinced Christians. Your position requires way way way too much mental gymnastics to be taken seriously. When reputable NT scholars start talking about it, then I’ll pay attention. Or least try.

You’re the one who isn’t engaging. The article you are commenting on already answers and refutes you. That makes your massive comments pointless wordwalls: they contain no productive content.

Everyone can see where and how my article answers your question and refutes your lame attempts to make the answer be something else. And that’s just the story of you.

And it’s an embarrassing story, Michael.

Richard, dismissing the argument as a “wordwall” doesn’t engage it—it avoids it. If your article actually refutes what I’ve said and already answers the question, then this should be straightforward:

Quote the specific section of your article where you (1) identify the historically attested Gentile group Paul is engaging that is not synagogue-connected, and (2) show that from the sources. That’s the entire issue.

You’re claiming the answer is already there. Fine—then point to it directly and explain how it resolves the question. Simply asserting that it does, while declining to show where or how, isn’t a refutation—it’s a deflection.

The question hasn’t changed, and it’s not complicated: What identifiable, historically attested group of Gentiles—outside proselytes and God-fearers already participating in Jewish religious life—is Paul actually engaging in the New Testament?

If your article clearly answers that, then just demonstrate it. If not, then dismissing the question doesn’t make it go away.

Considering that the historically attested Gentiles in synagogue settings (proselytes and God-fearers) were already present in synagogues, and Paul returned to synagogues to seek “Gentiles”, in what sense does Paul’s mission to Gentiles represent an extension of the covenant beyond its existing framework, rather than a movement within it?

Continuing to post wordwalls that ignore the article they are supposed to be responding to—an article that already refutes all this, and already answers your question—is only kicking yourself in the face, Michael. Everyone is palming their face at you now.

You really need to know when to stop this nonsense.

Richard, accusations about honesty don’t resolve the issue—they avoid it. If I’ve misrepresented your method, then identify the specific point and correct it. Simply calling it false doesn’t engage the argument.

You say I quoted you out of context. Then show the context that changes the meaning. Which of these do you reject:

• That the New Testament is rooted in a Second Temple Jewish framework
• That its categories are historically conditioned
• That its eschatological expectations were understood as imminent

You’ve argued all three publicly. If my synthesis is wrong, demonstrate how—not just assert that it is.

Now, on the synagogue issue: you say you addressed it, but you still haven’t identified HERE which historically attested Gentile groups you have in view. So the question remains:

Which Gentiles in the first century are actually known to have been present in synagogue settings?
This isn’t disputed in scholarship. The recognized categories are:

• Proselytes
• God-fearers
• Both are recognized in Second Temple scholarship as Gentiles who were already participating in Jewish religious life.

Even in your own writing (your blog entry 21, January 2021 There Is No Logically Sound Case Against Interpolation In 1st Thessalonians 2), you acknowledge God-fearers as “Gentile synagogue sympathizers”—a regular and recognized phenomenon. Oops! So you have already answered the question. Thank you.

So the issue isn’t whether Gentiles existed—it’s which Gentiles Paul is actually seeking in the contexts described by the sources.

Now, if Paul’s activity is consistently situated within Jewish categories—law, covenant, Israel, scripture—and the only historically identifiable Gentiles in those settings are synagogue-associated participants, then the burden is on you to demonstrate where the texts clearly move beyond that framework.

In other words, it’s already been shown, even by your own published material, that Paul was seeking Gentiles who were within Israel’s covenantal structure. The onus is therefore on you to show (not just assert) that Paul was seeking some other Gentiles, those outside of Israel’s covenantal structure. That claim will require evidence from the sources—not assumption, deflection and posturing.

So let’s make it precise:

What identifiable, historically attested group of Gentiles—outside synagogue-connected proselytes and God-fearers—is Paul actually engaging in the New Testament?

If that expansion is as clear as you claim, it should be easy to show directly.

The point I made was methodological, and it comes directly from YOUR own stated approach.

No, it doesn’t. You listed a bunch of disparate out of context quotes, and then made a false statement about what they said. I caught this and called you out. Now you are pretending that didn’t happen.

And you avoided (like the plague) my bonus question: In the bible, Paul is described as being commissioned to go to the “Gentiles,” but the scriptures show that he immediately returned to visiting synagogues.

Since I wrote a whole paragraph on this in my comment, your claiming I avoided it, and now not even remembering what I said (my actual answer to this), kind of outs you as not an honest interlocutor.

Try actually reading the comment you are replying to. And try being an honest person for a change. Because all this lying makes your conclusion look fraudulent. Exactly the opposite of what you seem to think you are achieving here.

Richard, the issue here isn’t whether the New Testament is “a mixture of texts.” That’s not in dispute. The point I made was methodological, and it comes directly from YOUR own stated approach.

You’ve argued that these texts must be interpreted within their original Second Temple Jewish context, that their categories are historically conditioned, and that their apocalyptic expectations were imminent—not projections thousands of years into the future. That isn’t something I invented; it’s a fair synthesis of the principles you repeatedly emphasize. And I happen to agree with ALL of those principles.

If you think that synthesis is incorrect, then the solution isn’t to dismiss it—it’s to clarify where it misrepresents your method. Which part, specifically, do you reject? That the texts are rooted in a first-century Jewish framework? That their categories are context-bound? Or that their eschatological expectations were understood as imminent by their authors? Those are all positions YOU have publicly defended, so simply calling the summary “false” doesn’t actually engage the point.

As for your claim that my questions are already answered in your article, I’m addressing the underlying methodological tension, not repeating your conclusions. You state that Acts is fiction and that Paul doesn’t mention synagogues, but that doesn’t resolve the core issue—it shifts the evidentiary basis. Even if Acts is set aside, Paul’s letters are still written within a Jewish covenantal framework, using categories like law, Israel, covenant, and ethnē. The question remains: where do those letters explicitly extend the covenantal problem—and its solution—beyond that framework? That’s a textual question, not one that can be dismissed by redefining sources.

And if your position is that the relevant material is already covered in your article, then pointing to it without engaging the specific questions doesn’t demonstrate that the extension is actually made—it just asserts that it is. The challenge still stands: where, in the sources themselves, is that move clearly shown?

Finally, the accusation that I “didn’t read” your article doesn’t address the argument either. If I’ve misunderstood something, then correct the misunderstanding. But dismissing the questions on that basis avoids engaging the methodological issue entirely. In other words, it’s a deflection. The point isn’t to violate a comments policy—it’s to examine whether your stated interpretive method, applied consistently, supports the broader conclusions you’re drawing from the texts. Apparently, they do not. I’m asking for clarification, not deflections.

And you avoided (like the plague) my bonus question: In the bible, Paul is described as being commissioned to go to the “Gentiles,” but the scriptures show that he immediately returned to visiting synagogues.

Which “Gentiles,” historically, were known to be present in synagogues?

Are these not the very groups widely recognized in Second Temple scholarship—God-fearers and proselytes—who were already participating in, or attached to, Israel’s covenantal and synagogue life?

If so, then in what sense does Paul’s mission to Gentiles represent an extension of the covenant beyond its existing framework, rather than a movement within it?

Meanwhile, your questions are all answered by the article you are commenting on.

For example, I explicitly discuss which Gentiles hung out at synagogues. I also mention that Acts is fiction. The actual Paul never mentions synagogues. And so on.

So it is clear you didn’t even read the article you are now commenting on. This violates my comments policy. Don’t do it again.

your method requires that the New Testament be read as a first-century Jewish, covenantal, and imminent-apocalyptic body of texts

False. The NT is a mixture of texts spanning two lifetimes by a dozen different authors from different perspectives and backgrounds. And none of the lines you quote out of context have anything to do with that. So this looks like you’re making shit up to me.

In On the Historicity of Jesus, you argue that:

“Christianity began as a Jewish sect… all of its earliest doctrines must be understood in that context” (p. 52),

“Apocalypticism… entailed the expectation that the end was imminent” (p. 249),

and that these were “not predictions about events thousands of years in the future” (p. 251),

“Ancient categories like ‘Jew’ and ‘Gentile’ were… religious and legal distinctions” (p. 73),

and that “we must interpret ancient texts” according to their original context and audience (p. 6).

Taken together, your method requires that the New Testament be read as a first-century Jewish, covenantal, and imminent-apocalyptic body of texts, addressed to a specific historical audience.

So here are the questions:

A) Where, in the New Testament itself, is the covenantal problem—defined in terms of Israel’s law, covenant, and restoration—explicitly applied to those outside that covenantal framework? And where is its solution explicitly applied to them? Not later theological development. Not what Christianity became. Where in the text, within its own first-century context, is that extension clearly made?

B) If your method is applied consistently, that extension must be demonstrated from the sources themselves. If it cannot be shown, then on what methodological basis is a universal, transhistorical reading justified?

C) And if that justification does not come from the texts themselves, but from later developments, then on what basis do you reject a reading that remains confined to the original historical and covenantal scope?

BONUS QUESTION: A related question follows from the narrative itself:

D) Paul is described as being commissioned to go to the “Gentiles,” but the scriptures show that he immediately returned to visiting synagogues.

Which “Gentiles,” historically, were known to be present in synagogues?

Are these not the very groups widely recognized in Second Temple scholarship—God-fearers and proselytes—who were already participating in, or attached to, Israel’s covenantal and synagogue life?

If so, then in what sense does Paul’s mission to Gentiles represent an extension of the covenant beyond its existing framework, rather than a movement within it?