Continuing A Conversation with Atheist "barry"

 
This blogpost continues a discussion that was started in the comments HERE, and Continued HERE. Then back at the original thread in the blogpost HERE. That blogpost seems to be where we keep returning to.

In response to barry:

When it comes to your objection that you don't accept Biblical infallibility and therefore it's illegitimate for me to go to other passages to help exegete a particular passage, I already mentioned in my other blogpost how boring and easy it would be for me to defend Christianity if I were to assume Biblical Errancy. If I were to assume Errancy as a Christian I could just accept Biblical passage X and reject passage Y. I could accept the passage I go to, and reject the passages that you go to. In fact, many of the passages you use in your anti-Christian spiel [or Anti-Gospel] are from books considered by some to be Deutero-Pauline. Whereas many of the passages I go to are considered, even by many skeptics, as part of the seven authentic Pauline epistles. 

I don't think 1. Sola Scriptura [or Prima Scriptura during times of the on-going giving of (the highest degree type of) revelation & inscripturation like OT times or when the Apostles were alive] or 2. Biblical Inerrancy requires Christians or the Church to know with apodictic philosophical and epistemologically infallibilist certainty which Biblical canon list is correct [e.g. 66 books, 73 books, or whatnot]. Even Protestant apologists like Gavin Ortlund and James White acknowledge this. For example, White points out that Scripture was binding on the Jews during Jesus' ministry even if some Jews disagreed about the Biblical canon. The Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses, while the Pharisees accepted the whole Tanakh. Yet, for the sake of argument and discussion with the Saducees Jesus was willing sometimes to restrict His apologetic with them using only the Torah, rather than the entire Tanakh. So, theoretically, for example, I could accept 1 Corinthians and Romans [both authentic Pauline epistles] and reject 2 Timothy and Titus [considered by many skeptics to be Deutero-Pauline, and so not truly written by Paul].

Even non-Christian scholars and skeptics grant that there was some overlapping consistency among early Christians even though they [i.e. the scholars and skeptics like atheist Richard Carrier] don't accept inerrancy, or positively deny inerrancy. So, it's not entirely inconsistent or implausible for me to appeal to other books outside of the particular passage you're fixated on at the moment at any given point in our discussion. Given that there would plausibly be some consistency between different Christian communities regarding some of the core doctrines, ethics and behavior. Even among the [the alleged] conflicting Christianities (with their differing canons) that Bart Ehrman likes to talk about [and other scholars before him, and of whom he leans on, borrows from, and on whose shoulders he stands upon]. There would be some similarities between the conflicting and clashing versions of early Christianity because of cross-pollination of ideas and practices. Analogously, even the Jewish Essenes, as much as they wanted to distance and distinguish themselves from mainstream Jews, non-Jews and Hellenization/"Greekification"/"Heathenization" in general, couldn't completely protect themselves from being influenced and "infected" by those they deemed "unbelievers" and "false believers." Another obvious reasonable cause of similarities of beliefs and practices between different Christian communities who may have isolated themselves from each other is that of a common derivation prior to splitting up. This is why the Essenes still believed in the God of Israel, or why the different Christianities usually think Jesus is the messiah. You can't always say or know that the author of one New Testament book was unaware of [or disagreed with] the doctrines, canon, or practices of the author of another New Testament book. If my shtick is to too easily accept harmony among the authors, your shtick is one of an uncharitable hermeneutic of suspicion, doubt, skepticism, and inconsistency.

As I said in my other blogpost I often [not always] defend Christianity in a worldview fashion and therefore on the assumption of inerrancy, because 1. I'm a presuppositionalist, and 2. because if I could successfully defend Christianity assuming inerrancy, which would be more constraining and therefore more difficult, then that's all the more the better for Christianity. Since, I said that the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy could be wrong, and Christianity still be true. 

//No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)//

I didn't say the verse was ONLY about insignificant issues. But that's one type of topics that can fall under sinful Christian wrangling. Also, if the issues were about important doctrine, then it would be serious enough to require being addressed. For example, heresy absolutely needs to be addressed. That cannot fall under the rubric of insignificant issues. It's a matter of orthodoxy and the core of the Christian faith itself. Those issues aren't optional to discuss, but are absolutely required to be discussed. As all 1st century Christians, Jews and ante-Christian Jews [BCE] always tackled heresies. So, it would be a category error to refer to polemics on those as wrangling or quarreling [contrary to your claim that "wrangling" as you define it applies to very important doctrine]. Though, there would obviously be other issues in between that don't either 1. rise to the level of heresy, nor 2. are completely insignificant and fall far below important issues on the scale of importance. Those [middle] things can sometimes require addressing, and other times discussing them would qualify as wrangling/quarreling. Depending on the topic or the way in which those topics are engaged and discussed.

Also, discussion, quarreling and wrangling among Christians isn't necessarily sinful per se. It's like drinking alcohol or eating food. Just because drunkenness and gluttony are sinful, doesn't mean eating and drinking wine are sinful. What makes them sinful are when they reach a point of becoming harmful. In the same way, some kinds of discussions are sinful and could be called "wrangling" [in the usual/common negative sense], and other kinds of discussions [even sometimes on the same topic] could be legitimate "quarreling" [in the unusual/uncommon positive sense]. One way you can tell if some discussion is sinful "quarreling/wrangling" is if it does harm. Not all activities are immediately known to be sinful. And some activities can pass from being legitimate to illegitimate by time, intensity or quantity [e.g. eating leading to gluttony]. So, I don't think it's wrangling when Christian Star Wars fans and Christian Star Trek fans and Christian Stargate fans debate which is the best franchise. My ranking is "Trek," then "Gate," then at a very distant 3rd, "Wars." Now, if they start "force choking" or "Vulcan neck pinching" each other, or start shooting each other with zat'nik'tels, then they need to stop for the sake of Christian peace.

//...and insist that word-wrangling within the church can often be useful and can build up the hearers.//

Yes. If it's "wrangling" in the permissible or positive sense, not the negative sense. Paul's prohibition in 2 Tim. 2:14 is about HARMFUL discussion, not beneficial discussion. When it becomes harmful, then it becomes "wrangling" and "quarreling" in the negative sense, and should be avoided or terminated. Even if the topic is an important issue like predestination. Calvinists and Arminians and Molinists need to stop discussions when they become harmful. But if they can resume in such a manner that's mutually edifying, then they can discuss the topics again.

//Second, you have mischaracterized Jesus' comment about casting pearls before swine. He didn't attach any qualifications to it. Once you identify them as swine, you have no more choice, you are NOT to cast your pearls before swine.//

Again, you're reading the Bible and understanding communication like a fundamentalist by reading it in a woodenly literal fashion. First off, it may not be an absolute prohibition, but advice, given the undesirable consequences. Even assuming it is a command, it might be a hyperbolic command [as I strongly suspect, if it were an actual command]. This is how rabbis and Jesus often talked. When Jesus forbade swearing, it's not an absolute prohibition. He's talking about frivolous and flippant swearing, even though it's phrased in an absolutistic way. The Old Testament taught the propriety of swearing and taking oaths in the name of God [Deut. 6:13; 10:20], and is probably presupposed in the 9th Commandment when it commands people not to bear false testimony. The Apostle Paul swore and advocated it or things amounting to it [Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20; 2 Cor. 11:10; 2 Cor. 12:19; cf. 1 Tim. 5:21; 6:11 ] . Jesus Himself, for all intents and purposes swore, in His answer to the High Priest's command "I ADJURE YOU  by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" [Matt. 26:63]. Jesus' reply invoked God [hence amounting to a swear], when He said, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power ["Power" here is a metonym for God] and coming on the clouds of heaven" [Matt. 26:64]. Notice it's in the same book in which Jesus prohibited swearing [Matt. 5:33ff.]. You'll say that I'm invoking inerrancy. Not, necessarily, since, as I said above, even skeptical scholars grant that there was some consistency among the practice of early Christians with Christians, and of Christians with Jesus.

Jesus commands, "LABOUR NOT for the meat [i.e. food] which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed" [John 6:27]. Jesus phrases it as an absolute prohibition, yet virtually no one thinks Jesus is absolutistically forbidding people from working in order to earn money for food to eat. Jesus commands in Matt. 23:9-10 not to call anyone "father" or "teacher/instructor" in a seemingly absolutistic way. And yet there are teachers and fathers in the early church [fathers: 1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 1:10 ||| teachers: 2 Tim. 1:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 5:12; James 3:1]. Similarly, your interpretation about Jesus commanding His followers not to give to pigs and dogs pearls and holy things is woodenly literalistic. 

Remember, that Paul's letters are usually regarded as written earlier than all the canonical Gospels. The author of Matthew would have likely known that there were teachers and fathers in the church, and that some of them swore, yet the author nevertheless had Jesus say what we have in the text. So, the author of Matthew probably understood that it wasn't an absolutistic command not to swear, have fathers, or teachers. Paul called Timothy his child/son [1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1]. The Gospel of Matthew was probably written by a Jewish Christian primarily to evangelize and provide an apologetic to fellow Jews. It would hardly do or be strategic to undermine the concept of rabbis/teachers among Jews whose concepts of religion was intricately intertwined with having respected teachers/rabbis. So, it's likely not an absolute command, but rather a command not to have an ecclesiastical structure where the leaders are overly respected or venerated. What evidence or argument do we have that Jesus is being literal about never giving pigs and dogs the sacred things? When Jesus Himself often interacted with people who could be seen as dogs and pigs. Jesus even continued to engage with people who were on the verge of committing the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [or who actually committed it]. See my blogpost where I critically review Vincent Cheung's book on the topic of the "Unpardonable/Unforgivable Sin" HERE. Elijah (one of the most respected prophets to Jews) mocked and egged on the prophets of Baal to their destruction. Even "encouraging them to sin" [as you think I did you] by having them pray and call upon their god more fervently. Why would it be difficult to think early Christians would seek to imitate Elijah or Jesus in engaging hostile opponents? Of course they would. 

2 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV

[14] But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. [15] For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, [16] to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?

Here's the passage again:

Matthew 7:6 LSB

[6] “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

The trampling down may refer to the truths being lost, wasted, or destroyed. The tearing to pieces refers to figurative and/or literal attacks that harm the proclaimers of the truth. You can't literally attack me. You don't know where I live and I have no reason to believe you would physically attack me if you did. Nor does our conversation result in the lose, waste or destruction of the truth. Since our conversation is recorded and people reading it any time in the future can benefit from it. Nor is there a risk of me being spiritually harmed because I'm a fairly seasoned apologist. Whereas I would dissuade new Christians from discussing with you because they would be harmed by your attacks on the truth. So, even if Jesus' statement in Matt. 7:6 is a command, it doesn't apply to our situation between you and me. It's not like our conversation makes Christianity look bad and is publicly remembered/recorded in a way that would do damaged to Christianity. However Matt. 7:6 would apply to young and weak Christians who would potentially engage you.

//And yet it was years ago, when you first found out I claim atheism and then started strangling bible inerrancy, that you concluded I was swine.//

I never concluded or claimed you were a pig or a dog. And even if I did, that doesn't necessarily require me to stop engaging you. Only that were I to conclude you were, I would be justified and within my Christian liberties in disengaging with you. I would not be dishonoring God, hurting His cause or fellow Christians in such a case if I were to withdraw from this conversation.

//LOL How could you have thought me any better than "swine" starting years ago?//

There are plenty of people who resisted Christ vehemently for decades and eventually God saved them. No one is a lost cause from the human perspective while on earth. Since I don't know whether you are elect or non-elect. Also, people might benefit from reading our interactions. I don't just write for you, but also for myself and others in our conversation. Who knows who might read this conversation next year and eventually become saved. The Bible says:

Prov. 26:
4     Answer not a fool according to his folly,
        lest you be like him yourself.
5    Answer a fool according to his folly,
        lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Verse 4 is reminiscent of Jesus' prohibition of giving to dogs and pigs. Verse 5 in conjunction with v. 4 is a classic presuppositional passage on apologetics. One can answer a fool according to his folly and show him his errors. Often by using his own arguments to expose his folly. I want to expose how what you deem "wisdom" in your own eyes is just that. Only in your own eyes. That your objections aren't actually any good.

//Third, Titus 3:9-11 explicitly tells you to avoid anybody who causes divisions, that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions. Unbelievers are often eqwually as capable of causing church divisions as Christians are. And yet you disobey that verse because you constantly engage me, a person you obviously view as either divisive or attempting to be divisive. Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

Let's look closely at Titus 3:9-11. Since this is a blogpost, we aren't limited in space like in the comments section.

Titus 3
8    The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
9    But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10    As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
11    knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

You said, " that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions." But of course there are. Read it in context. You skipped the previous verse (v. 8) which says:

8    The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, SO THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED IN GOD may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for PEOPLE.

The last word is "people." Who are the "people" Paul is talking about other than "THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED IN GOD"? The answer is, "those who have believed in God." Id Est, that is, Videlicet, namely, CHRISTIANS.

//Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

You're not reading it in context. Let me quote more of the context by including Romans 16:1-18.

1    I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
2    that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
3    Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,
4    who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.
5    Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia.
6    Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.
7    Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
8    Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.
9    Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
10    Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus.
11    Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.
12    Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord.
13    Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
14    Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them.
15    Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and ALL THE SAINTS who are with them.
16    Greet one another with a holy kiss. ALL THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST GREET you.
17    I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
18    For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

The OBVIOUS context is that of the church given that he mentions and greets many Christian members in the Church at Rome. If Paul were including non-Christians, then it would have been superfluous for Paul to say, "For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." No, rather Paul is saying that despite their claims to being Christian, in actuality they are not genuine servants of Christ BUT RATHER [notice the contrast] servants of their appetites which are their true Lords. Besides that, critiquing non-Christians immediately after that LONG greeting to Christians would be coming out of nowhere, from "left field." This again, is why I constantly am telling you that you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, by spoof-texting. There are variants to the famous saying, but as the saying goes when it comes to hermeneutics, "A  text, without a context, is a pretext for a proof-text [I would say "...a pretext for a SPOOF-TEXT"]" This doesn't even require delving into the SUBTEXT [as I pointed out in my previous blogpost]. But just the plain surface Text of the passage. Before you make such dogmatic assertions on the interpretations of a passage, I recommend you read the context carefully, or you might end up seriously embarrassing yourself. 

//...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

Yes, you are a God-hater, because despite all your intelligence, your bias blinds you to the obvious. That's what's called in theology the negative noetic effects of sin on the mind. You can't see the obvious because you don't want to see it. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

//No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)//

I already pointed out that if it's about important doctrine, then it wouldn't be wrangling [in the negative sense]. So it would be a category error. Heresies need to be immediately and vigorously refuted. We are to contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered/handed/entrusted to the saints [Jude 1:3].

//That's a useless observation since I never expressed or implied the verse was telling you to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians. The point of my argument is that an unbeliever could be reasonable, if they chose, to avoid interacting with you about biblical bullshit because the bible makes it clear that BOTH of us are sinning just as soon as the inevitable word-wrangling starts. All the other bible verses requiring apologetics efforts to be made, can be obeyed in ways that do not involve word-wrangling.//

This is related to what I said in my previous blogpost about how if your interpretation were consistently applied that that would mean a Christian would virtually be unable to interact with non-Christians. So much so that [as I said] a Christian wouldn't be able to Command or Request a non-Christian to not drink and drive because it would necessarily involve sin on the part of both the Christian and non-Christian [given your misinterpretation of Calvinism (which you apparently also impute to non-Calvinist Christians) that everything non-Christians do is "sin" per se. Rather than as being "tainted" with sin as *I* said. There's a difference.]. Yet Jesus and the early Christians used Roman coins which some Jews had qualms using because the coins could be interpreted as idols due to the image of the emperor on them [Mark 12; Matt. 22]. The use of them seemingly encouraging both Jews and Gentiles to sin in their interaction with each other. Similarly Paul himself allowed for Christians to buy meat offered to idols and so seemingly to some [like you] might be interpreted as an endorsement and incitement of unbelievers to sin [1 Cor. 8].

//Then you obviously disagree with Cheung, since you've identified me as "swine" years ago, yet you've kept up ceaselessly wrangling words with me. Your brother Cheung thus views you as equally "...as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel..." Nice going.//

Cheung is generally right here, but general truths don't apply in every particular case. Job's "comforters" often misapplied general truths to Job's particular situation. Divine calling/vocation and context [among other things] help determine what would or wouldn't be sin. It would be sinful for someone called to be a firefighter to regularly [under normal circumstances] be doing surgery if he's not also called to be a doctor. Or making sandwiches when he's not called to be a wife [j/k]. I'm not claiming to have a calling to be an "Apologist" with a capital "A," because I'm CERTAINLY NOT.  But doing minor apologetics is one of my God given gifts, though I'm more of a pawn than a knight or a bishop on God's chessboard. 

I obviously disagree with the subtextual implicit criticism of predestination in this line by Omar Khayyám which is obviously influenced by Islam; but I'm reminded of this quote:

 'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
 Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
   Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
 And one by one back in the Closet lays.

We will either be on God's side, or foils in God's providential plans for mankind. I urge you to repent and believe the gospel. 

See my blogposts: 

Non-Christians CAN Do Things to "Prepare" Themselves For Salvation Even On Calvinism

Counsel For Those Doubting or Doubtful of Their Election  


//Neither Matthew 7:6 nor 2nd Timothy 2:14, nor any other verse, expresses or implies that "pity their lost state" creates any exceptions to those apparently absolute prohibitions.//

And yet Jesus and Paul engaged non-believers in polemics and apologetics all the time in the core books of the Christian canon. You liked citing Sye about not doing Bible studies with unbelievers, but Philip did a Bible study with the Ethiopian [Acts 8:30-31] and Paul reasoned with unbelieving Jews from the Scriptures [Acts 17:1-2ff.]. One might dispute the authenticity of 2 Timothy, but most Christian canons include in their books the Gospels, Acts and the 7 (usually) undisputed Pauline epistles. Hence the distinction between the homologoumena vs. the antilegomena [and other permutations of canons]. And in those core books Jesus and the Apostles deeply engaged unbelievers.

//And you refute that with your clear inability to successfully resist your patented need to answer a single item with 6,000 difference referneces...//

If you're referring to citations of Biblical passages, that's because I want our readers to know that I have a lot of Scripture backing up my claims. That I'm not pulling things out of thin air. If you're referring to the books I cited and other stuff not directly related to our discussion, that's because I want to evangelize both you and any potential future readers. Enduring that is one of the prices you pay for interacting with me on MY Blog. You can quit whenever you want. But maybe I and anyone reading this blog might pray for you long after the discussion has stopped.

//It's when you do more than give links to other commentaries, that you disobey Matthew 7:6.//

Nope.

//  //Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.//
That's ludicrous.
-------No, you quoted Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 55, Joel 2:12 and Ps. 145 in the effort to pretend that because these verses demand "reasoning", surely 2nd Timothy 2:14 cannot be forbidding you from "reasoning" with unbelievers.   //

I started off by showing why in the context of the book ITSELF that your interpretation was false. Like I said, "That's ludicrous. I appealed to the VERY NEXT VERSE [v. 15], and then just 9 verses later [v. 24] IN THE SAME CHAPTER, as well as the next chapter [3:16], and the chapter after that [4:2]." 

ONLY AFTER I addressed the immediate context, did I then cite other passages. Passages which Christians would have known and read and viewed as authoritative Scripture. That doesn't require an assumption of Biblical inerrancy or a certain knowledge of the canon. Even non-Inerrantist Christians can view Scripture as authoritative to some degree or another. Especially Scriptural books that have a long history of acceptation among "the people of the book." If you were a 1st century Jew, you might not have accepted Esther, but if you believed the canon went beyond the Torah, then in all likelihood you accepted books like Isaiah and Jeremiah and the Psalms [and possibly  more]. It's not like Jewish and Gentile Christians magically started believing the Septuagint as Scripture beginning at AD/CE 33. No, Jews even before the birth of Jesus respected the Septuagint(s) as generally reliable translations of the Jewish Scriptures. Also given my point above that, "There would be some similarities between the conflicting and clashing versions of Christianity because of cross-pollination of ideas and practices." So, they would have been influenced by the ethic and practice of the OT. Not to mention Jewish traditions, practices and ethics outside of the Scriptures.

//Jesus never said...[anything]...about any New Testament or about 27 extra books being added to the Hebrew canon, yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious.//

The Jews were known even prior to the dawn of Christianity as "the people of the book." As a people with a written Scriptures which formed the basis of their Covenant relationship with God [Torah] and was also formed as a result of God's interaction with His people [Nevi'im, and Ketuvim]. It only made sense to Christians that given that they inherited the Old Testament Scriptures which was based on an Old Covenant, that with the advent of the New Messianic Covenant that there would also be a corresponding New Testament Scriptures. This is basic apologetics. Do I really need to explain this to you? There's so much more I could say to elaborate on why there would be a Christian canon, but other apologetical sources explain the rationale for why Christians rightly expected and accepted a New Testament Scriptures, and why the 27 books that we have. It's not my job to spoon-feed you the basics of Christian apologetics when there are plenty of books, and even YouTube videos and websites that address these things. Things like the canon of the New Testament. Besides, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on having these exact 27 books. There were Christians and a Christian Church in existence long before the NT canon was finalized. Even when there were books that nearly ranked as canonical but not included in the final list, like 1 Clement [et al.].

While Webster's lectures are slightly obsolete, the basics he teaches are still a good place to start. Listen to his lectureS on Scripture and the canon here:

William Webster as a place to start: Roman Catholic Tradition: It’s Roots and Evolution 
https://christiantruth.com/audio-lectures/roman-catholic-tradition-lectures/

OR here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=desktop&list=PL0sjXTMkIiPYJhdGYDHUvs-YSth9tJSO7

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha from The Jewish Age to the Reformation by William Webster
https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction/

Sola Scriptura Defended Video Playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5

//...yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious.//

The book of Romans is (virtually) universally accepted by Christians as canonical and inspired. By many of the early Christians too. And this is irrespective of Romans' errancy/inerrancy status. Logically speaking, something can be divinely inspired and be "authoritative" [in some sense(s)] without being inerrant. Given that Romans is one of the core books received by the Christian church in most canons, therefore it has some authority among many (most?) Christians [again, irrespective of its errancy or inerrancy].

// The Arminians are equally as confident in the blasphemous nature of Calvinism, as you are confident that libertarian freewill make a man into his own idol. Let's just say your blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues doesn't have any effect on me, even if hearing yourself talk all big and bad makes you feel god is using you in a special way that only the members of your particular cult can "see".//

In my interactions with others I often grant there are ambiguities and uncertainties in theology and Bible exegesis. My exegesis will sometimes be mine alone, sometimes also of my fellow Calvinists [most of whom are cessationists], sometimes also of my fellow continuationists [to the exclusion of cessationists], and sometimes with all or most of my fellow Christians. My commitment is to the truth of Christianity first, and not to Calvinism. I'm even open to Calvinism being false. But I often argue for what I presently am convinced of. Who would fault me for that? Also, in our conversation I often didn't dogmatically make a stand on things, but argued for what I believe and suspect to be true. For example, I believe in inerrancy, but I didn't argue [at least in *our* conversation] for its certainty or assumed its certain/definite certainty [sic] in my arguments. When I did, it was, as I said, in a kind of hypothetical way whereby if I could show that even on Inerrantist grounds I could overcome your objections [despite my strapping one hand behind my back], how much more would that help the cause of Christianity. Moreover, I even granted that I might have the wrong canon. I even granted for the sake of argument the distinction between authentic and unauthentic Pauline epistles. Et cetera. That's a far cry from your claim about my (alleged) "...blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues..." As I've demonstrated, you're the one who is unjustifiably dogmatic, or having "blindly confident assertions" [to use your phrase], regarding verses like Rom. 7:7; Rom. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:14, Rom. 16:17. Your interpretations of which I refuted.

//Then you are on the level of the atheist fool who thinks the book of nature is self-attesting, and karma is gonna get worse and worse for you the more and more you suppress the truth in the name of Jesus.//

The book of nature is God's book. He wrote it. And all of history is literally, HIS-story. On atheism, there is no book. There is no General Revelation. Nature doesn't speak or reveal or convey anything on atheism. It's all "sound and fury signifying nothing." On atheism you can't justify the existence or knowledge of abstract entities. On atheism you can't even justify the assumption of the uniformity of nature or solve the problem of induction, inductive experience and inductive reasoning. Because of which you can't even have justification that the laws of physics will be the same 5 minutes from now. On atheism you don't even have minds or humans. Do I need to repeat what I said before about atheism and Eliminative Materialism, The Hard Problem of  Consciousness, Mereological Nihilism, the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [EAAN]? I could say so much  more. But I'll end it there.

//And yet "stating the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus" is precisely what Calvinists and other Christians always do.//

And? We're suppose to do that as Christians. You're taking Cheung out of context. He's not against that. He was against using 1 Pet. 3:15 as a basis for doing that. He points to other passages for doing that. But he denies it in that verse.

//Aint it funny that the kind of philsophical short-cuts nobody is allowed to make when arguing on the merits, must always be allowed to presuppositionalists?//

That's what Sye-Clones do. Serious presuppositionalists, while they don't always do it, allow for non-presuppositional sub-arguments. The late Steve Hays of Triablogue fame was a presuppositionalist, but he often used arguments in ways non-presuppositionalists do. If you read his average blogpost you wouldn't get the impression he was a presuppositionalist. You'd think he was a non-presuppositionalist because of his historical and philosophical arguments. Bahnsenian presuppers often don't do that, or deny their propriety. But Framean presuppers do affirm the propriety of their use. I highly appreciate Bahnsen and his work, but I'm more of a Framean. See John Frame's books like "Apologetics to the Glory of God" which has been extensively redeveloped and expanded under the name "Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief". Read Greg Bahnsen's books too. Van Til affirmed that much of the traditional non-presuppositional arguments both philosophical and historical can be reformulated presuppositionally or be attached to presup. arguments [say, as sub-arguments].

"I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.....But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact." - Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 199]

//If spiritually alive people can so unjustly hijack a bible verse, you are STUPID to expect god to do anything better with a spiritually dead unbeliever, even if god renders him spiritually alive. //

That's like saying if Dr. McCoy's cancer patient whom he cured can't immediately run a marathon but can only walk 10 miles, that therefore Dr. McCoy can't help another cancer patient. That's illogical. Nowhere does the Bible teach instantaneous and complete sanctification of mind, beliefs, and actions upon conversion, or even in this life. On the contrary, it denies it. Sanctification is progressive in this life and progresses at different speeds in different areas of people and their lives, and among different individuals. All according to God's different providential plans for each one. For example, God used Arminians like John Wesley mightily. If he were a Calvinist, he might have been less effective at doing what God called him to do as an evangelist. God placed him in the time [18th century], the location [England], and with the theology he had [Arminianism] to fulfill his niche in Redemptive History. Sinless Perfection NOT Possible This Side of Death [1 John 1:8-10; Eccl. 7:20; Prov. 20:9; Jam. 3:2; Rom. 7:15-25; Phil. 3:12-14; Gal. 5:16-17].

You're a smart guy. Probably much smarter than me when it comes to natural gifts and abilities. But despite all that, I was able [in my humble opinion] to systematically dismantle your arguments and (presumably) core aspects of your atheological apologetics which you believed and employed for years when engaging with Christians. How was I able to do this? Because it's easier to defend the truth than errors. It would frighten me to have lived under such deception for so many years as you have.

John 12:47-48 ESV

[47] If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. [48] The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV

[10] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

//If Paul thinks spiritually alive people can be ruined by word-wrangling, he most assuredly think spiritual dead people can only derive something worse from word-wrangling.//

You might think both of us were word-wrangling. I don't think I was word-wrangling. But I do think you were. Apologetics provides opportunities to plant the seeds of the Gospel. It's up to God to cause growth [1 Cor. 3:6-7].

I sincerely thank you for interacting with me. I enjoyed it. It was intellectually stimulating. I do hope good things for you and your future. I would like to interact with you again sometime in the future. But not any time soon. I have other things I need to do for the foreseeable future.

Feel free to leave some concluding comments in the comments section below. I may or may not respond to them.