If the B-Theory of time is true, then Christianity is implausible

My opponent comes out of the woodwork with a shotgun effect of straw-mans, which makes the majority of his arguments utterly trivial. I never claimed that the truth of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) was necessarily incompatible with Christianity; I made it clear that my position was that they self-evidently lessened the likelihood or plausibility of Christianity being true precisely, for the reason that there are alternative views. However, these alternative views are either Ad Hoc or improbable in their own right, which is why most theologians do not adhere to them. It should be clear that my argument stands regardless of any vague epistemic possibilities which allow (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) to be compatible with Christianity as the essence of my argument need not be founded on strict incompatibility.Con makes a rather useless claim to fuel this misguided agenda, which has me extremely baffled as it is based an embarrassing bastardization of the argument I put forward."(1) The five propositions are not truly incompatible with Christianity"My argument was never founded on an assertion that the truth of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) was necessarily incompatible with Christianity. This elementary straw-man argument is severely bizarre. Rebutting My Opponent(i) Con claims that Creatio Ex Nihilo this has never been a central doctrine in Christianity, however this is a flat out falsehood. The majority of biblical scholars maintain that the whole of Genesis 1:1ff, Psalms 33:6, Psalms 148:5, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 11:3 clearly indicate a creation out of nothing [1]. This seems to indicate that any other obscure interpretations have a high probability of not remaining true to scripture. Therefore, Con's futile attempt to disarm me with regards to Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit sheds no negative light on my argument in the slightest.(ii) With regards to there being no creator under B-Theory, it was essentially hand-waved away by my opponent in an erroneous fashion. Simply presuming that this line of argumentation from me is just "based on semantics" is a bare assertion without justification. Anybody who both:a) Knows how to comprehend wordsb) Has access to a Holy BibleCan clearly see that God is strictly defined as a creator, and a being who brings things into existence. I urge voters to not be fooled by Con's tactics, as InquireTruth is the type of Christian that mischievously deviates from scripture to make certiain claimes compatible with The Bible, due to being overwhelmingly compelled by the evidence hidden within those statements which contradict The Bible. I maintain that (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) as a totality are not necessarily incompatible with Christianity, however (ii) is incompatible with Christianity. Since the universe would not come into being or be created under B-Theory then this line of reasoning from me alone affirms with resolution, and leaves Con left with no other choice but to either delve into radical epistemological skepticism, or flat deny scripture. (iii) Con appeals to Calvinism to show free-will is not vital to Christianity, but Calvinism is a false gospel to most Christians because it teaches a radically different gospel than the true gospel given to the original Christians in question. The majority of theologians reject this view. Thus, if his argument relies on Calvinism then Christianity is still implausible given B-Theory. (iv) My opponent conceded this point. Also, his biblical quote with regards to "always" was speaking about tensed time, which B-Theory does not ontologically include. (v) Con essentially concedes this point, but argues that it may be better to say that evil is "always" overcome. This is false. The Bible speaks in a tensed fashion, and also for evil to be overcome it has to be "over". However, if all evil of the past exists; evil is never overcome.As it stands, the resolution has self-evidently been affirmed.Sources[1] http://www.theopedia.com...