Alas, most of your well-enough-written comment strawmans what I say in the article. Here's what I said about Plato and Aristotle:
"Can you contrast Paul’s theological rigmaroles with the arguments you find in Plato, Aristotle, or the Epicurean philosophers such as Lucretius?"
Do you see me calling them "naturalists" in some technical sense or in any sense at all? I was talking about the difference in writing styles and in argumentation. My point was that Paul's letters are audacious and obnoxious and are thus explainable in terms of the evolutionary Handicap principle. By contrast, all philosophy is humanistic in that it respects the intellectual integrity of the readers, by appealing to their capacity to think for themselves.
In any case, Plato, Aristotle, and philosophers in general are indeed "naturalistic" not necessarily in the technical modern sense, but when compared to theologians and to authors of religious scripture, since the latter appeal to religious revelation, prejudice, and authority, whereas philosophers treat the world as an ordered whole, as a cosmos that can be rationally explained.
Like many mathematicians, Plato was a metaphysical dualist, but you seem to be treating naturalism as entailing Newtonian physicalism. Parts of nature can be quite abstract and counter-intuitive, without violating the spirit of naturalism which is virtuously the same as the spirit of humanism. I'm talking here about methodological naturalism. Plato assumed that reason can figure out how the world works; thus, his faith was in human nature. By contrast, Paul dismissed the "natural man" and "natural wisdom," appealing to faith in a transcendent supernatural power that intervenes at will in nature, making nonsense of philosophy and science.
I'm aware of Plato's and Aristotle's impact on Christian theology. Aquinas even attempted to write in a systematic philosophical style. It was all for naught, of course, because his heart wasn't in it. He was just a dogmatist and a church functionary, not a real philosopher. His "arguments" were casuistic rationalizations of his faith in the church's authority.
I agree, though, that religion and science/philosophy have different standards and roles. I argue against scientism in numerous writings. My point here isn't that Paul should have been doing philosophy or science. Neither is my goal here to refute Paul in careful, logical fashion, since you don't take the rantings of an obnoxious, crazy person as though they merited that more sophisticated response. My main point, rather, is to reveal what's been hiding in plain sight: Paul's letter to the Romans is obnoxious and it's therefore likely the source of all Christian fundamentalists' palpable obnoxiousness.
Still, there are arguments in the article. For example, there's an argument by analogy for the null value of Jesus's sacrificial death.