>>723959853
>The bible did not exist before it's earliest chapters were drafted in Rome, before then you had other religious texts
Yes, the Ten Commandments were set out in the Hebrew texts far earlier, of course.
It's also said in Romans that "the law is written on the human heart", in other words people tend to have an innate sense of morals that lets them know the right thing to do, even if they haven't had exposure to Christianity, Islam, Judaism or one of the many, many offshoots.
So it's fair to expect people to act morally, which is the primary aspect of the "test" God puts before people.
>Nothing to do with Holy doctrines, these are memes that have been passed down and learned from experience through out the ages. Wild animals also adhere to these natural memes
See what I said above. If we're operating under the assumption Christianity is real for the sake of the argument, you can say it's something God has given humanity innately. If not, then there's no point to this argument.
Either way, your original argument was "not knowing jackshit". But if we innately know the right thing to do, then it's a fair test of us to expect us to do what we know is right.
>No, there are other sources of the event such as from Tacitus, a roman historian
I know, that's why I said "directly referenced", but you cut that out of my post.
Tacitus indirectly referenced the event, and does not go into further detail. It just says that Jesus was executed by Pilate, and does not say anything about martyrdom or lack thereof.
>This by definition is not a test unless you're saying God is testing himself and making us witnesses to it
Witnesses to the example, yes. I never said that it specifically was a test of humanity, I said it was switching around the usual order of the Bible by God doing the test on himself.
>God told them to not eat the fruit but never why
"You will die" seems like a reason to me.
