If you imagined a conversation taking place it must of been only in your head. Because you haven't made any point, no introduction, no actual debate of any kind.
All that has transpired here is you asked 1 question about jesus and I answered it. Then you decided to flunk out and insult me by calling me not being an adult accuse me of lying with no retort.

Come back when you have anything of substance.

Just in case you like to come back and actually debate have a look at this talk between christian and atheists debating eyewitness during time of supposed jesus.
You probably have the same queries



This post was edited by addone on Apr 11 2026 12:08am

I've already had my encounter with Jesus. I am absolutely sure in my faith. Once again, the problem is not whether or not God exists. The problem is that you are rebellious and want nothing to do with him.

You refuse to repent of your sins. "Can you trust that there is no God?" That is not the correct question to be asking. The question is whether you will repent of your sins before it's too late? The clock is ticking.

More scripture taken out of context.

These warnings did not discuss a "physical" death.

they did die though, it was a change in ontological nature. in the garden following His will they would never die.

"not correct question" lol wtf? It absolutely is a correct a question, one that should bother you greatly. It is a direct counter to your question "can you trust god?"
I am just returning the favour, your logic directly back to you.

If you cannot answer your own logic how do you expect others to answer you yours? This is called being a hypocrite and applying different set of criteria to assess truth.

I would like to know what is your criteria for accepting truth. Do you go by feelings and strong confirmation bias on some things and apply rigorous scientific hard proof and sound logic towards other beliefs? Or are all beliefs measured and tested equally? What does that look like?



What is this context and how are you ariving at the conclusion its not "physical" death?

This post was edited by addone on Apr 11 2026 04:06am

correct, death is separation, they experienced a ontological change from their separation from God (spiritual death) which leads to the biological death as they are subject to decay from their separation from the Life. God himself is the Life, separation from Him is death.

your epistemology is "useful survival delusions" you have no justification on truth

Where does it say "ontological" or "spritual" death? Sounds like you trying very hard to justify a clearly maniacal god who has consistently demonstrating has deep hunger for killing/genociding people and animals at a slightest disobedience. Have you not read the bible? All of a sudden he doesn't mean death like 999 times he means "spiritual" death. Without a reference you are just coping.

the bible is liturgical, it is meant for the Church not private interpretation for whatever your arbitrary understanding of words is

Fact vs opinion.

You continue to get corrected and refuse to adjust.

You simply want to take things out of context to fit a narrative that doesn't exist. This is a deliberate misrepresentation and your argument failed before you ever made the thread (was never your argument to begin with).

This thread holds the same premise as for example the globe vs flat earth argument.

Fact vs opinion.