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.
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.
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.
>Which makes the name a bit of a misnomer - Judas knew what he was doing.
Judas's story is a big point in supporting my atheism , like you had a dude following a God for years, witnessing extreme miracles and still the guy had doubts that the person was a God and at the same time this Gods would want me to believe based only on that old,censored book that contradicts itself with reality and morality 100 times. I would have censored this story too if I was there.
> you had a dude following a God for years, witnessing extreme miracles and still the guy had doubts
The COVID years have inoculated me against that line of thinking (pun intended). If people would deny that the bodies piling up in hospitals are conclusive evidence of something more than "just a flu" then I can totally imagine an individual seeing a miracle and arguing "dunno, maybe he was just a little dead". And I've definitely seen people take money to argue in favor of policies they know to be false, harmful, or both.
I'm also atheist, but I don't have a problem with the Judas story. Firstly, I don't think that the miracles happened as depicted, so a real-life Judas may have thought "I bet he switched the wine and water flasks" or "I know there's just submerged rocks under that water".
Alternatively, if he truly believed in Jesus as a god, then he might think "how could they kill a god?" and would want the silver as he'd expect it to be funny when the Romans couldn't kill him.
I'm sure I read a theory somewhere that Judas was actually the true savior. We are told Jesus suffered for our sins, but his suffering was momentary, whereas Judas's suffering in hell is infinite, without being compensated by any posthumous veneration (quite the opposite - eternal vilification). Jesus's execution was just a sideshow by comparison - a distraction from the true sacrifice.
One might say that the existence of a doubter or rejector lends the story authenticity.
After all we have doubters and people who betray for money today in all walks of life.
What's even more noteworthy about miracles is the report that some of those who had the miracle applied to, who were healed even some of them didn't believe or even say thanks! The point of the miracle maybe was not really to make people believe... it's a mystery to me.
If you believe all the miracles are true, you'd see Satan entering Judas to tempt him as kind of a big deal. The kind of thing a normal man couldn't really overcome.
The New Testament is pretty open about the fact that what Jesus claimed can be pretty hard to believe. The other disciples doubted Jesus too for a very long time. Yet eventually, what they heard and experienced convinced them enough that they preferred to be put to death rather than deny its truth. What makes you think Judas is more trustworthy than them?
(In fact, the Bible's willingness to talk about the weaknesses of its protagonists makes it all the more believable to me. If the early church leaders had "censored" the story to fit their own interests, why did they leave in all that embarrassing stuff about themselves?)
13of40|2 years ago
krapp|2 years ago
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.
Tabular-Iceberg|2 years ago
simion314|2 years ago
Judas's story is a big point in supporting my atheism , like you had a dude following a God for years, witnessing extreme miracles and still the guy had doubts that the person was a God and at the same time this Gods would want me to believe based only on that old,censored book that contradicts itself with reality and morality 100 times. I would have censored this story too if I was there.
probably_wrong|2 years ago
The COVID years have inoculated me against that line of thinking (pun intended). If people would deny that the bodies piling up in hospitals are conclusive evidence of something more than "just a flu" then I can totally imagine an individual seeing a miracle and arguing "dunno, maybe he was just a little dead". And I've definitely seen people take money to argue in favor of policies they know to be false, harmful, or both.
ndsipa_pomu|2 years ago
Alternatively, if he truly believed in Jesus as a god, then he might think "how could they kill a god?" and would want the silver as he'd expect it to be funny when the Romans couldn't kill him.
jl6|2 years ago
thinkingemote|2 years ago
After all we have doubters and people who betray for money today in all walks of life.
What's even more noteworthy about miracles is the report that some of those who had the miracle applied to, who were healed even some of them didn't believe or even say thanks! The point of the miracle maybe was not really to make people believe... it's a mystery to me.
boomboomsubban|2 years ago
veddox|2 years ago
(In fact, the Bible's willingness to talk about the weaknesses of its protagonists makes it all the more believable to me. If the early church leaders had "censored" the story to fit their own interests, why did they leave in all that embarrassing stuff about themselves?)
truculent|2 years ago
tgv|2 years ago
dang|2 years ago