Howdy, Light, what you have just done is called by some here "Gish gallop", named after someone I respect Duane Gish, who was often accused of bringing up several unrelated points all at once. Fact is, if you're in a debate and there's enough time for all questions to be answered, it makes sense to let loose, but you should get the other person's permission and it should fit the debate format.

1. It's reasonable to start with proof that God exists and what he is like, and then to search for his revelation in the world and to find the Bible and Jesus Christ to have high reviews for that status, and then to investigate and find this to have higher reliability and consistency than any other approach; that's not circular (although it's correct to say some formulations by Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants are circular). The historical fact that the death of Jesus is associated with immediate reports of resurrection that became an ongoing movement among billions indicates that there may be something supernatural going on, and even if there isn't there's something that sustains and encourages more truth seekers than any other comparable narrative. When the veracity of the core is recognized, the possibility of other supernatural elements in the narrative can be reviewed too. But you don't have to start with the virgin birth if you're skeptical of that, start with the generally accepted fact that the gospel Jesus is unlike any human that ever lived, and look into why.

2. Good things don't need marketing; forced conversions are a blot but they don't disprove a whole system but only a particular attempted application of it. The fact that missionaries believe they have such a good thing, that they don't market it for pay but live for years on subsistence to empathize with other cultures just to be able to share the good thing, suggests there may be something there. But obviously the 501(c)(3) that churns out self-help books in the name of Christ is not necessarily selling a good thing.

3. The "higher school" of Biblical textual criticism is biased against the text, as the biographies of its 19th-century innovators show. However that's not relevant to the truth of the matter because I can go to any textual critic no matter how biased and, by God's grace, find the pathway to truth that works from what sources that person does accept as truth. The Bible is holistic in the sense that if you lose much of it you still have all you need. So if you're willing to state what your core revelation of truth is (whether it's a list of books, or a personal revelation that you can distinguish from other experience, or an outside source, or your own conscience), then you can still build to all truth from there. I find that lots of people who do that eventually realize the church's list of 66 books is Pretty Good Prophecy.

4. I don't know how you know there were not two temple cleansings three years apart, as there is no contradiction or contraindication. There are several ways to harmonize texts if a person wants to treat them like any other historical documents; but if a person wants to disqualify them from the start he quibbles over minor issues instead of reads the main point. So that goes to what you want to do with the fact that there are two accounts of temple cleansing; have you got something better, or are you just complaining without a solution? Sincere question.

5. (a) Matthew is giving an accurate, but incomplete, genealogy, where it is known that about 4 kings (regarded as of less account) are omitted, and other later names may be omitted. This is not regarded as deception, but as selection; the purpose of the selection is to emphasize that the genealogy is Davidic and the important parts of it can be remembered with 3 lists of 14 names (41 generations), which is easy to remember because of the gematria. Also culturally nobody quibbled about inclusive rather than exclusive counting. (b) I love Codex Bezae, but it doesn't indicate your narrative about Jesus becoming at one with God at baptism via soul birth. If you approach the text believing that it was intended to use false statements to teach mystical concepts secretly, that contradicts historical inquiry and invalidates ability to derive anything from the text, because the secret could be proposed to be anything. But people didn't do that in those days, they circulated historical accounts for the purpose of testifying historically what actually happened. If you investigate the sources of your claim, you'll find that they arise from a proposed oral tradition in competition with the oral tradition used by mainstream Christianity. When you look at the histories of the two traditions, the mainstream (despite its quirks) has a clear demonstration of being the actual tradition intended by the apostles, when compared to any esoteric tradition. So if you agree on what standards of proof you wish to use, the judgment of what is really true about the account can be made objectively, and I'd be happy to work with you on seeking that judgment jointly under any agreeable standards.

6. It's actually irrelevant to argue whether Theophilus was a real person or an allegorical title, because those are both possible plaintext readings. What you're doing though is to find esoteric (secret-order) readings and then substituting them for the plaintext. It's an established canon of construction that Judean texts were to be judged on four levels, the first being the plaintext and the last being the esoteric, and all four levels were cooperative with the plaintext always being more determinative than the rest. (A secret might be intended, but the plain meaning is always intended.) The problem is that people who uphold convenient numbers like 432 also don't go very far in teaching that anything comes of it. Wow, I found 432 twice, that means what? Well, it means the text is holy, what else? Well, the person might say, I don't know because I don't believe the text actually means what it says. Such a person only has a feelgood experience from finding the number, and might get a (diminishing-return) experience again from finding another number, but is not using the text the way the person wrote it, which is to be a conduit for God's teaching on every level starting with the plain meaning.

7. You are free to reject the plain teaching about sin, but you are not free to ignore that thousands of years of history support that the same plain teaching, as it developed, was upheld by a covenant preservative community. This community upheld the plain meaning and was not sustained by some secret symbolic reading. Some propose that there existed a secret community all this time that knew the secret, but you see that anyone could make such a claim and deny all evidence. Maybe I am the current exponent of a secret community that was founded 6,017 years ago and has preserved secrets that I speak to the willing in secret, which have never been written down but have always been transmitted orally and even nonverbally; how then could your claims of secrets compete with mine, except by our agreeing on objective judgment standards for truth?

8. (a) I have a lot of experience with quantum physics, but you don't go to any specific so I can only guess your application; and much of quantum physics permits any religion to claim they have had a corner on what the physicists are arguing about but don't have consensus on. Sure we are to become like Jesus and pursue gnosis and reject pseudognosis. Have you protected yourself against including pseudognosis (false knowledge masquerading as real) in your experience? Gnostics have that problem of not being able to distinguish the two unless they know what standards distinguish truth from error. Look into it. (b) Historians have hidden the fact that the Hyksos expulsion of c. 1539 BC was attested to involve the departure of myriads of Semites from Egypt, and yet they don't think that's the Exodus, partly because they use excuses to late-date Moses and then ignore the Hyksos. Yes, Abraham came from the Canaanites and lived among them, and Israelites were influenced by Canaanite culture for centuries, but you don't have evidence that you can know for certain these things never happened.

TLDR: If you're interested in gaining more gnosis on these points, I suggest you share your standards for judgment and your commitment to pursue truth at all costs. If you're one of those who doesn't pursue truth because you think contradictions are fine, you won't have any way to protect yourself from actual lies or destructive narratives. But if you do pursue truth, you will be able to state how you distinguish truth from pseudognosis. The rest is detail on that theme.

So, if you found it all to be real and believable, then what proof, evidence, or anything to substantiate it do you have? What proof do you have that God incarnated on earth and human sacrificed itself to itself to fix the problem that was its plan to begin with? What's believable about a virgin birth? What proof or evidence do you have that God actually said any of the stuff attributed to it within the Biblical texts? What proof do you have that those books teach God's truth?

You are trying to argue from wrong side.

Even in science everything is based on the set of axioms or hypothesis. Then, you take a look at results. If a theory based on some axiom/hypothesis gives results and predictions that are in good match with reality, and no resilts contradict theory, then you could be sure that you choose right, true set of axioms/hypothesis.

Symbol of Faith is a set of axioms. And church based on that set of axioms show best possible results. It survived unchanged for millenia, it guides our people through all shit imaginable and it effectively prevented the degradation of our souls. If this works, then our set of axioms is true.

If what you stated is true, that good things don't need marketing. Then the mere existence of Christian missionaries would prove Christianity is not a good thing. That Christians force converted the Roman empire in 380 CE shows that it's not a good thing.

You still mix Catolics with Orthodox. Konstantine followed church created by Pavel. Orthodox Church was created by Andrey.

It's obvious that the same person did not write/dictate all of them.

It does not matter. F.e. it is not known if "Zion Elders Protocola" are real or not, and who is true author. But it absolutely does not matter, because they correctly describe everything Jewish cabal do. I don't care who wrote "Zion Elders Protocols", I care about if they are useful and match reality.

In John 2:13-22, the story of Jesus cleansing the temple is put at the beginning of an alleged ministry. In the Synoptic Gospels, the event is put at the end of the ministry.

I don't see any problems here. End of one ministry could be a beginning of a new one. God tried to save Jews from degradation and turning to Satan, but they rejected God's help. So it was pretty logical to destroy specific Jewish-only ministry that does not work and establish a new one for all people of the world.

And so on. You are trying to attack wrong things, just like Jews are trying to prove that "Zion Elders Protocols" are wrong attacking author, but not the content.

I'm perfectly fine with inconsistencies in New Testament, because exactly that make it real. If you ask several people to describe one event they all witnessed, you will get different stories with some unsignificant contradictions. It is perfectly normal and usual thing for humans, because all humans are different. This is exactly how real story told by several people would look like.

On the opposite, when all witnesses tell exactly same story up to the tiny and insignificant details, this is always a clear evidence of conspiracy.

The texts of the OT are to be interpreted symbolically

Old Testament is a combination of some early world history recorded by not very educated people combined with the history of endless Jewish crimes. The latter was the reason of God's last attempt to save that damned tribe from themselves, that described in New Testament, and that ended in Jewish attempt to kill God himself, but eventually turned into a priceless gift to the all people of the world.

You have a strange, verbalistic approach to the thing that is complete opposite of verbalism. You pay all attention to the letters, completely ignoring the essence.