[13of40]

I think the analogy would be that Jesus really was magic, but Judas was blind to it and living in a material state of mind where taking the 30 pieces of silver made more sense than continuing to follow some weirdo. If Judas was a true believer he would have realized that the wine and hookers he could buy with that would be less than useless compared to what he would get in heaven.

[krapp]

My reading of it is that Judas was a "true believer" in the sense that he came to doubt that Jesus was actually the Messiah, because so much of what Jesus did contradicted the popular ideal of what the Messiah represented. From Judas' point of view he was sending a heretic and cult leader to their justly deserved end.

But the whole narrative was written after the fact to justify Christian claims of being the legitimate heirs to God's covenant and condemn the Jews as a people for "betraying Jesus" so expecting any degree of nuance beyond "Satan made him do it because Jews are greedy" is likely expecting too much.

[explaininjs]

This doesn’t explain him becoming overcome with guilt, returning the money, and hanging himself after the fact.

And the entire message of the New Testament is to offer the Jews salvation and explain how their old ways were wrong. The New Testament explicitly condemns absolutely nobody, instead offers salvation to absolutely everybody, which the only condition being that they ask for it. This is in stark contrast to the old testament, in which only the Jews would be saved and all else are condemned.

Not to mention the New Testament explicitly states there is no Jew or Gentile in the body of Christ. The distinction is entirely abolished. And Jesus calls Judas a friend, and says he could avoid this all if he wanted to but he must do it to fulfill the scriptures.

All in all it seems like you are reaching for a reason to say the New Testament is anti-Jew, when it is truly not against anyone (except perhaps those unwilling to love God and their neighbor).

[krapp]

This isn't something I made up, nor is it even controversial[0]. Antisemitism was a common cultural and political element of the early Church and its establishment of self-identity as separate from Judaism, and the belief (sometimes codified into Church doctrine) that the Jews were cursed by God for their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, and the villification of Judas as the symbol of that curse is almost as old as the Church itself[1].

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testa...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity#C...

[explaininjs]

Certainly you will be able to find people saying anything if you look. But you can't present a wiki page where some guy "asserted" something was true and use that to justify your claim that it "isn't even controversial".

People will use anything to find a reason to dislike other people. You can be a part of perpetuating those malcontentments, or you can look at the entire rest of the New Testament which at every turn denounces condemnation and emphasizes love above all else.

[mistrial9]

this story is taught in different ways, really different ways. Specifically not all traditions teach it as you describe.

[Tabular-Iceberg]

If what Solzhenitsyn said about the line between good and evil is true, then it’s fully plausible that Judas could be a true believer but still betray Jesus. Same with Peter’s denial.

[mistrial9]

not familiar with that (yet!) but.. I think Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment also touches on very gray areas and their cycles and consequences.