Thoughts on the fate of Judas

[Goblinmonger]

Since my high school days, when I was a very strong Catholic btw, I have often been perplexed by the "Judas is in hell" argument. Jesus had to be killed as he was. In order for that to happen, he had to be turned over to the Romans. Somebody needed to turn him in. But for Judas, our redemption doesn't happen. So Judas spends eternity in hell because he does what has to be done for God's master plan to be implemented. Seems kind of shitty.

Even now, looking at it more as an English teacher, doesn't feel right.

[otherone]

1. Well he hangs himself

Perhaps he goes to hell and is redeemed by Christ ..

[Goblinmonger]

5. That's what Matthew tells

but Acts says he just falls.

[Drale]

12. He became the first Vampire in some stories

Doomed to walk the earth as undead for hanging himself

[hrmjustin]

2. I think Judas was likely forgiven.

[duhneece]

6. I think the 'Gospel of Judas'

...makes the point that Judas had to do what needed to be done and sacrificed his life, his reputation to do as Jesus/God wanted him to do. From Wiki (I know it's not the best documentation, but it works for the purpose I want, "...the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. This portrayal seems ..."

[LostOne4Ever]

3. Don't they make a similar argument in the Gnostic gospels?

I have always found the gnostic to be interesting. Some of them take traditional biblical villains and turn them into heroes and heroes into villains.

Cain and Judus, for example are seen favorably while the god of the old testament is seen as a villainous demi-luge.Seeing the OT god as a villain, in particular, I find fascinating and reminiscent of my own views of that deity.

[Goblinmonger]

9. I love Lord Byron's play Cain.

"I didn't know people could die" is a pretty compelling argument.

[struggle4progress]

4. If it worries you, I guess you might want to think twice before selling any of your friends

to lynch mobs, and I expect the Catholics probably also counseled you against suicide. Beyond that, I have no special insight into this particular matter

[Goblinmonger]

7. But he had to sell Jesus to the government.

If he didn't, there is no sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

And Acts says that he falls. It is only Mark that says he commits suicide.

[struggle4progress]

11. As I've already said, I can't shed further light on the matter

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Unless you subscribe to the Gnostic concept that Judas was following the divine will

of God in order to bring about the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ for all mankind. (See the Gnostic Gospel of Judas)

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

Personally, I find the notion that a kind and beneficent omniscient omnipotent God who loves all of God's Creation consigning one of God's creations to torture in hell of all eternity as punishment for natural human frailty to be wrong on way too many levels.

If there is a God, and that God is kind, beneficent, omniscient, and omnipotent, I would expect that God to be at least as good as the best human being.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I'm aware of and like the Gnostics

but that is not the general attitude of most Christians.

If I were still a believer, I would find the Universalists compelling.

[sweetloukillbot]

13. According to DC Comics he became the Phantom Stranger...

Seriously though, I do recognize the need for Judas' betrayal, and I do think that Jesus did forgive him. I remember one actually preaching about the resurrected Jesus meeting the disciples by the lake in Galilee, and how Jesus absolutely would have invited Judas to join them at the campfire.
I may be misremembering the Bible story.

[Warpy]

14. None of it feels right when you examine it closely

which is why most people never examine it closely.

[msongs]

15. there is the core family value of that particular religion nt

[JNelson6563]

16. I daresay it was the suicide that doomed him.

At least from the Catholic perspective. As a girl I was taught in Catholic school that the only sinthat couldn't be forgiven was suicide. Perhaps Judas had little choice in selling out Jesus but the suicide thing would've been his own choice.

If you subscribe to such thinking, anyway.

Julie

[skepticscott]

17. When you think of it like that

it's a tidy way of handling it. Judas is taken out of the picture, and ends up where most Christians would think he belongs, but god's hands are clean of any seeming injustice.

[JNelson6563]

18. Indeed, a tidy little package.

Destiny fulfulled and[\i] eternal vengeance. It doesn't get much better than that.

Julie

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Condemning suicides to eternal unforgivable punishment is, well, unforgivable.

It is that sort of horrific horseshit that makes religion obvious nonsense.

[edhopper]

20. True,

God punishes mental illness with eternal suffering, what a guy!

[JNelson6563]

23. Quite inhumane.

[okasha]

28. The Church no longer teachers this.

NT

[rug]

31. Nor has it ever declared anyone, including Judas, to be in hell.

[JNelson6563]

35. New rule!

Gotta love rule changes.

[rug]

41. It's not a new rule. There is only one unforgiveable sin and it's not suicide.

[JNelson6563]

53. Really?

Suicide was the unforgivable sin because, in choosing to play god and decide when your life ends, you have no opportunity to regret and be forgiven for the sin. This according to the nuns who taught me.

So yeah, if that has changed, it's a new rule, like it or not Rug. But do tell, what is your personal teaching of what the one unforgivable sin is.

In anticipation,
Julie

[rug]

56. Here.

Matthew 12:31

Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Before literalist apoplexy sets in, the sin is believing you've done something that God can not and will not forgive. That is the blasphemy.

On occasion I've heard people, including a nun here or there, say that suicides have done just that. But, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, that is wrong. The person who kills himself is often distraught to begin with. And even the person hurtling off a 30 story building can have a moment of clarity and sorrow. No one knows. It takes little to seek - or receive - forgiveness.

[LiberalAndProud]

37. That's an interesting point.

Has the church changed the dogma on this point? If so, have the dogma makers explained the change? I think there might be an interesting discussion to be had here, but I it would require additional information about the church's view, has it changed, if so why. Those kinds of things can be enlightening to us, I think.

[okasha]

38. The reason given

was that no one knows what goes on between the soul snd God during the last moments of life or immediately after death. It is also now assumed that someone who is in so much pain that s/he commits suicide is not necessarily able to make a conscious choice to sin. The conscious choice to do wrong is s necessary condition of sin.

[LiberalAndProud]

46. I'm really not trying to be a smartass here.

But my question is so cliche it's annoying... Do you have a link for that? It would be a really interesting read.

[okasha]

60. Not handy.

I read it years ago in a print source.

But if you google "Catholic Church suicide" you will probably come up with several online sites that could provide more information.

[rug]

42. No, dogma hasn't changed. If anything has changed, it's emphasis.

It used to be that a Catholic who committed suicide could not be buried in a Catolic cemetery but that was a cemetery rule, not dogma.When it changed its rule about cremation, no dogma changed. When it changed its rule on meatless Fridays, no dogma changed. When it said limbo was not dogma, it didn't change dogma because limbo never was dogma. Many people thought the speculation was dogma because so many people emphasized limbo but it never was dogma.

In fact, there are very few dogmatic teachings.

[LiberalAndProud]

45. Am I to understand that we're discussing arbitrary and relatively meaningless rule changes then?

[rug]

47. If you do it would be a misunderstanding.

They're not whimsical. But they're not dogma.

[LiberalAndProud]

48. I guess you are necessarily correct by definition.

Once changed, it [s]is no longer[/s] never was an incontrovertible truth.

[rug]

49. It can't be dogma if it never was dogma.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. This isn't the conversation I was hoping for, but it's interesting nonetheless.

How would a reasonable person make the distinction between dogma and ... whatever these revised tenets might be called?

[rug]

51. That person would start by defining dogma and proceed to distinguish.

[LiberalAndProud]

52. I understand the definition of dogma.

If a concept is presented as incontrovertibly true, that would be dogma. However, I was not aware that the church offers untruth or temporary truth as a form of spiritual nourishment. Given that, let me ask you how you have managed to make the distinction between what is dogma and what is more helpful suggestion. There are specific issues I am wondering about, but I'd rather not address specifics before we have established what the general guidelines might be.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. There are a variety of levels of 'confidence' in dogmata for the church.

All very convenient, of course. One would think that if the church actually held the bat phone, the various dogmata would be much more Boolean certain/uncertain.

[LiberalAndProud]

58. I'm having a genuine problem with this idea.

For example, my impression of the official Catholic response to the aides crisis was that it was reliant on dogma. I can think of no other reason to so steadfastly oppose the use of condoms to ameliorate that vicious disease. The crisis had become extremely severe before the official stance against condom use was revised. If not dogma, what possible reason might be postulated as the cause of the initial unconscionable stance?

I suspect, but cannot be sure, that dogma is that which has not yet been proven harmful, exposed as undeniably false, or no longer a conduit for large ransoms indulgences. Perhaps you have a better insight as to which pronouncements are and which are not dogmatic decree.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Unfortunately i'm not much in a position to defend it.

I think it's all ridiculous. That was just an observation.

Low hanging fruit reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Dogma#Theological_certainties

There's dogma, doctrine, discipline, and 'deposit of faith' thingy.
Honestly none of this makes much sense to an outsider.

For instance, the opposition to contraceptives that killed so many people throughout the arc of the aids crisis appears to be a doctrine, which is based on dogmas. It is not, itself a dogma, and is fully binding on catholics.

*shrug*

[rug]

57. I read, I ask, and I listen.

There are lots of sources on dogmatic theology.

I'll check in later. I have to help a woman get her son back right now.

[okasha]

61. Dogmata are theologically grounded.

Rules, such as those governing who may be buried in a Catholic cemetery and how condoms may be used in specific circumstances, are not.

And yes, I agree that it took an unconscionably long time to endorse the use of condoms to prevent AIDS transmission.

[skepticscott]

43. Well, if you're inclined to think that way

there can in theory be sincere repentance for any other sin, no matter how grievous. For suicide…not so much.

[edhopper]

21. A similar conundrum about Adam and Eve

The are punished from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but before they ate, they did not know right and wrong. So why punish them for doing something that they did not know was wrong until after they did it?

Was that the original sin that we are all born to?

Or is the original sin we all are born in the fact that our parents had a good time screwing. If screwing is so bad, why did God invent sex in the first place and make it feel so good?

[mn9driver]

29. That's an easy one.

God basically told them to do whatever they wanted. Have a good time. The place is yours.

Except for one thing.

Don't eat the fruit from that tree over there.

Anything else you want to do is totally cool, but don't do this one thing. Really. Don't do it.

Knowing right from wrong was unnecessary. They just had to remember one thing. That didn't go well.

[skepticscott]

39. How did they know

that doing what god said not to do was wrong? You're still arguing from the perspective of someone who knows the difference, which invalidates the whole thing.

[el_bryanto]

22. It is tricky.

It depends on how much Judas understood about what he was doing. Did he know that what he was doing was what had to happen, or was he doing it maliciously and it happened to work out?

I don't believe in Hell myself (infinite punishment for finite crimes seems unjust) but he would be punished (I believe in punishment, not hell) for what he did, if he did it maliciously. I wouldn't have an issue with that.

Consider - someone hits me with their car as I'm crossing the street, and then speeds off like a jerk. I get laid up in the hospital for a few weeks and while recuperating and thinking come up with the idea for a brilliant novel that sells like hotcakes and changes everything for the better. In the long run I might be grateful to that jerk. But from his perspective, that jerk still an asshole for hitting me.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

24. "infinite punishment for finite crimes seems unjust"

Why would you assume that your deity is "just"?

[el_bryanto]

26. An unjust God wouldn't be worth worshiping.

Hey you still think all believers are thoughtless or dishonest?

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

27. Unless no one noticed, until too late

[Warren Stupidity]

32. many people have worshipped unjust gods.

And yes.

Your deity is on the record being cruel and unjust. For example, Job. Did he have a change of heart? Now he is just after all the earlier cruelty and injustice?

Besides, if you actually believe this deity is the only god, master of the universe, creator of everything, etc. "wouldn't be worth worshipping" seems to be a bit irrelevant. Your cruel unjust god demands worship. The penalty for disobedience is eternal damnation. I could understand not believing in this nonsense, but once you have decided to believe, worship seems to be a given.

A better answer is that god being perfect and all cannot be unjust, what god does defines 'just', even if it is obviously not.

[el_bryanto]

33. Thank you for your advice, and the confirmation of your opinion of believers.

You are a breath of fresh air compared to many others who post here.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

25. Amazingly, Jesus TELLS Judas to do it in some Bibles: “go quickly and do what you have to do."

Doesn't seem right for God to condemn someone for doing ... what God told him he HAS to do (in one reading). But oddly there are many parts of the Bible where God himself directs evil to happen: for example he "sends an evil spirit" to persuade people to do evil.

So? God sends evil to us it seems. And even makes us do evil it seems. For that matter? If God made everything, then God must have made Satan himself.

Thank you Lord. (Speaking sarcastically).

By the way? There has been much recent controversy about Judas and the Book of Judas (and the wife of Jesus, etc.) Most importantly: a year or two ago I had in effect a blog conversation with Dr. James Tabor of U of North Carolina. Who excavated or re-evaluate the "Jesus tom," and another related tomb; in the "Talipot" excavations. Tabor says that the (post-dated?) names on the tombs, and the DNA, correspond exactly to the Biblical account of the holy family. Except for one thing: Jesus had a son named Judas.

To try to fit Tabor's model, I tentatively hypothesized informally that indeed, Jesus might have been in effect married. Even with children; including Judas. And that the tradition of a betraying Judas, was about his own biological son betraying Jesus' tradition. Because of that betrayal, Judas was pictured in the gospels; but he was not pictured as a biological heir.

[okasha]

40. According to the gospel of John,

Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Iscariot. His name is usually interpreted as Judah Ish Kerioth, "Judah, man of Kerioth."

Jesus had a brother named Judah (Judas), presumably the Judah "not Iscariot" named among the Twelve. Nothing more natural than to name a son for a brother.

Sorry, but your tangled interpretations continue to be unfounded nonsense. You might at least do some basic research before hanging them out in public.

[Brettongarcia]

63. Sorry, but as usual Okasha doesn't know what she is talking about

The latest evidence that is asserted by Dr. Tabor is that Jesus had a son named Judah: " The ossuary inscribed “Jude son of Jesus” provides definitive evidence." James Tabor.com blog.

Sorry that the talk of real scholars always seems "tangled" and nonsensical to you.

Kevin Kilty andMark
Elliott, ‘On Yoseh, Yose,Joseph,and Judas son of Jesus
in
Talpiot,’
The
Bible
and
Interpretation:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/kil368024.shtml

This is what Dr. James Tabor asserts. Others to be sure are currently arguing against that position. But all of scholarship of course, is constantly arguing points. I do not assert the truth of Tabor's claims for the Talipot ossuary referring to the biblical Jesus and a son Judah; but I am discussing the hypothesis with him and others. Arguing for and against.

Tabor's position to be sure, would suggest that parts of the Bible were simply wrong, or interpolated. Given that presumption, the notion of Jesus having a son, correlates to recent findings that Jesus had a wife, say. While likewise the already problematic status of Judas I finds a new contextualization. In spite of doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Family_Tomb

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/the-jesus-dynasty/

[okasha]

64. Sorry, but as usual your post is nonresponsive

and boils down to mere obfuscatory hand-waving.

Let's take this really slow, now.

According to the Gospel of John, Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Iscariot. If he was the son of Simon Iscariot, he could not also be the son of Jesus of Nazareth. Capice? Basic biology. Any questions?

Dr. Tabor nowhere puts forth the cockamamie notion that Judas Iscariot was the son of Jesus, and I suspect that he laughed or will laugh in your cyber-face should you put it to him in your "discussion" with him.

What Dr. Tabor does argue is that the "Judah son of Jesus" who was buried in the Talpiot "family tomb" was most likely the son of Jesus of Nazareth. This Judah was clearly held in particularly high regard by his family, given that his ossuary was one of only two embellished bone boxes out of nine found in situ. (The other belonged to a woman named Marimne, quite likely his mother.) The name Judah is significant in the history of Jesus' family, given that Jesus had a younger brother who was also named Judah. It would be a most unremarkable thing for a Jewish father of the time to name his son after an uncle. It would be extremely remarkable for a family to show special honor to a son whose claim to fame was that he made himself an accomplice in his father's murder.

Now, if you can defend your "hypothesis" that Judas Iscariot was Jesus's son, let's see you do it. Without excursions into tangential matters or your pose as a "liberal theologian," please.

[Brettongarcia]

65. As usual poster "Okasha" didn't understand what I wrote. Nor what Dr. Tabor implies

Let's keep it simple for Ms. Okasha: this argument by Tabor, as I noted, begins to consciously depart from the Biblical model. As some scholarship now does. Particularly on Judas; and on the question of Jesus' wife and children. Tabor departs from the Bible when he says that Jesus had a biological son.

Which means? Your biblical citation is all but irrelevant. The Bible is not regarded as so authoritative here.

However, if we want to find ANY commonality between archeological evidence, and the Bible? Then by the way, we now know that the Bible was edited, to take out embarrassing alternative Christianities;as much Apocryphal material suggests. Or competing theologies were incorporated, but only indirectly. Among them are cases that Jesus was married, with children or heirs. From this and much else besides, I posed - to be sure, as an ad hoc hypothesis only - that, if we are going to be going beyond strict biblical fidelity, then perhaps the Judas Iscariot tradition was a residual remainder of a Jesus heir who did not work out.

Problems with biological heirs of founders, has historically been a major problem in countless religions; many tried to set themselves up as biological monarchies, with an hereditary head, linked to the first founder. The problem with these religions though, was the problem with hereditary succession or monarchies in general: often the king's first son and heir, was a bit of a lunkhead.

Given the prevalence of the hereditary model, It seems likely that early Christianity would have tended to focus on any biological son of Jesus. (As French monarchies later did, claiming to be His descendants). But it is also likely that the heirs disappointed. And their memory? Had to be suppressed.

As I have noted several times, all this is indeed quite speculative. However, it begins to link new evidence from Harvard, that Jesus was married; and evidence from Tabor and DNA that he had a son.

[okasha]

66. Sorry, but as usual your post is unresponsive

and boils down to mere obfuscatory hand-waving.

Let's take this really slow, now.

Dr. Tabor has rather emphatically departed from what you call the Biblical model, both before and after his involvement with the interpretation of the Talpiot tomb. Scholarship has been veering away from literal Biblical interpretation since the late 19th. century and the establishment of form, source and redaction criticism. No news there.

Unfortunately for you, Dr. Tabor also adheres quite closely to "the Biblical model" on many matters concerning the family of Jesus. He accepts that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, for example, and that Mary and Elizabeth were related through common descent through the Levite line. He also agrees that leadership of the Jerusalem "Mother Church" passed directly to Jesus's brother James, whom he also identifies as "the disciple Jesus loved." Simcha Jacobovici argues that that disciple was young Judah. Now, Jacobovici lacks scholarly creds, but he is nonetheless far more credible than you are.


Yes, Tabor argues that the "Judah son of Jesus" buried in the Talpiot tomb was the son of Jesus of Nazareth and his wife Mariamne (probably Mary Magdalen.) I happen to agree with him. It is, however, a huge leap of illogic to identify this son with Judas Iscariot. Tabor certainly does not make that claim, nor does any other reputable scholar. The fact that James was entrusted with the Jerusalem Mother Church supports the assumption that Judah lacked the years, the experience, or both to assume a leadership/rabbinical role among Jesus's followers. The fact that this Judah was buried in the family tomb with great honor militates against his identification with the man who betrayed Jesus to the Romans. (That man, you will recall, is said to have committed suicide.)

There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus intended to found a religion separate from Judaism that would require a "dynasty." Indeed, James, Peter and John were adamant that he was, and they were, orthodox Jews. It was Paul who separated Christianity from Judaism, and did so successfully largely due to the exile of the Jerusalem Church when Titus laid siege to the city.

On a slightly different tack, it's amazing the things one can find on Google. For instance, one can find a certain name connected to the blogs of several theologians over the last couple years. The person bearing this name exhibits an advanced case of logorrhea and a history of making wildly unfounded arguments, so much so that some bloggers--Dr. Larry Hurtado of the University of Edinburgh, for example--felt the necessity first to edit this person's comments, then to shut him down altogether. Interesting, wouldn't you say?

[Larkspur]

30. If you belive that God is a puppeteer, than Judas was doomed from his birth

While Judas' betrayal of Jesus is deemed as part of "God's" plan for humanity's salvation, that does not mean Judas had to do it. Judas most likely betrayed Jesus because he mistakenly thought that Jesus would be the political/military version of the Messiah that the majority of Jews at the time and especially the Zealots believed in. Jesus nor his early followers subscribed to that interpretation.

I think it was some of the Dead Sea Scrolls that shows that Jews who favored military rebellion against Rome opposed the sect that Jesus found or was founded by his followers in his name. Judas could be the early church's representative of this group of militaristic Jews.

As to the hatred of Judas by the early church, well it could be deep seated hatred or distrust of betrayers and informers, who betrayed church members to Roman police. Contrary to the early Church's story, many members arrested by Roman authorities renounced Jesus to the Roman judges to escape being tortured and/or killed by the state. These members would return to the church sometime after release and continue worshiping in the Christian faith. This behavior continued until Christians became the dominant religious group in Rome.

The other reason for the early church's public hatred of Judas was to show the Roman authorities that Christians were not a military threat to the empire, like the Jewish Zealots were. The demonizing of Judas was a political propaganda tool to persuade the Romans that Christians were not sympathetic to the Jews who led the revolt against Rome.

[deutsey]

36. +1

I don't believe any of the original events that would later be depicted in the Gospels were pre-destined, with Jesus and everyone going through the motions playing the role of a pre-determined drama.

They only appear that way in the Gospels because by the time they were written down, they had become part of oral traditions that, by their very nature, were easy-to-remember narratives attempting, in hindsight, to give order to (and make sense of) a tumultuous series of events leading to the death of Jesus.

I actually don't believe Jesus knew ahead of time that he would be crucified. I think he probably sensed the noose, so to speak, was beginning to tighten around him as his movement grew. But I don't believe he knew going into Jerusalem that he was doing so as part of a divine plan to save humanity from sin by dying on a cross. His anguished cry from the cross asking why God had forsaken him is one of the reasons I believe this.

What made that event so powerful to his early followers, imo, was how he lived out what he had preached (essentially, total trust in God), even as we was dying in a most tortuous and humiliating way. Instead of negating what he had preached and lived out during his ministry, the crucifixion ended up validating that the kind of faith he taught is possible even unto such a terrible death.

[No Vested Interest]

34. Judas was (believed to be) the "treasurer" of the group of Apostles.

Accordingly, he took the pieces of silver offered for turning Jesus over to the accusers.

It has been posited that Judas believed that Jesus, who had performed public "miracles", would be capable of saving himself, by one means or another, when necessary.

When Judas recognized that Jesus was not going to save himself, Judas realized what a terrible mistake he had made and took his own life.

Regarding suicide, that of Judas or any other, leaving aside those with an obvious mental illness, many believe that at the instance of death, the person is given a last opportunity to choose to be with God or not. Since we living do not know the final choice made by Judas or any other deceased, we cannot say Judas, or Hitler, or any other human is definitely in hell.

[Igel]

44. Meh. Prestination redux.

If Judas was predestined to do what he did, he can't be held responsible.

If he wasn't, then he can be.

All the usual argumentation and sophistry applies in the usual manner to obtain the desired result.


I have the usually "let's split the difference" POV We have free will. We make decisions. To all extent, as far as we are concerned, we are free.

To an omniscient being we lack free will. We are given the choice, but given enough information all the quantum uncertainty doesn't matter. If you can state the end from the beginning, there's not a lot of mystery about how somebody's going to act.


As parents we often make the same kind of distinction. We let our kids do things we know will end up badly--but not too badly. If we're wrong, we're pleasantly surprised. But we hover knowing that we're very likely right. The kid makes all the choices right on cue and we're there to watch him learn a lesson and then support him and bail him out (hopefully not "make bail&quot . We don't think that we've predestined him to screw up. On the other hand, when we does, it's not like we're in total shock.

Well, okay, sometimes, but that goes to a general lack of omniscience. Whatever our kids may think when they're really, really young.

As for the "go and do what you're going to do" line from Jesus, most people read it as a simple imperative granting permission. I usually read it as slightly snarky. "You're going to do something. Just go and get it over with, why don't you?"

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Ah, you've tripped to one of the great 'do we have free will or not' questions of the bible.

All signs in the bible point to 'no'.

Some of the signs point to 'you are just the faded memories of a supernatural thingy, because all you are, or ever will be, already happened in its imagination.'

Either way, the bible is clearly non-historical useless fiction so I wouldn't worry about it.