Bible difficulties and their harmonizations

[Difflugia]

In the spirit of this post, I'd like to try something. For any contradictions or difficulties that are posted, what are the various harmonizations that other members are satisfied with?

The experiment is to try to keep the argument away from whether or not the harmonizations are reasonable, but only to whether or not the harmonization has missed something that might need to be added. I guess I can't think of hard and fast rules for the debate, but the goal is to find harmonizations that others might not have thought of for particular difficulties without turning into a debate about whether they're good enough for a skeptic. If a harmonization claims to cover all the bases, then that's it. A more complete harmonization is always welcome, however.

[Difflugia]

I mentioned in the same thread that I think the death of Judas contains four contradictions:

• The means of death: hanging or a disembowelling fall.
• What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
• The reason for the "Field of Blood": a place to bury destitute foreigners or association with the blood of Judas.
• The theological reason for his death: suicide out of remorseful penitence or struck dead by God for avarice and hubris.

I'm familiar with generally accepted harmonizations for the first two ("the rope broke" and "the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf" respectively), but even if we accept those, I'm not aware at attempts for the last two.

[Adstar]

I mentioned in the same thread that I think the death of Judas contains four contradictions:

• The means of death: hanging or a disembowelling fall.
• What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
• The reason for the "Field of Blood": a place to bury destitute foreigners or association with the blood of Judas.
• The theological reason for his death: suicide out of remorseful penitence or struck dead by God for avarice and hubris.

I'm familiar with generally accepted harmonizations for the first two ("the rope broke" and "the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf" respectively), but even if we accept those, I'm not aware at attempts for the last two.

Ok so you have already had the harmonization for the first two..

Well the Blood money was used to buy the field where non Jewish foreigners would be buried.. So it would not matter if the field was cursed with the blood money.. Jews where not going to be buried there..

Not sure why you have a problem with the last two they don't seem to be contradictions at all..

We assume Judas regretted his betrayal of Jesus.. And that lead to him committing suicide.. God did not strike him down.. Judas struck himself down..

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by Difflugia]

• The means of death: hanging or a disembowelling fall.
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p975629
• What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9#p1006799
• The reason for the "Field of Blood": a place to bury destitute foreigners or association with the blood of Judas.
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p975690
• The theological reason for his death: suicide out of remorseful penitence or struck dead by God for avarice and hubris.

Do you have a reference for point 4?




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by Difflugia]

• The means of death: hanging or a disembowelling fall.
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 629#975629
• What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
• The reason for the "Field of Blood": a place to bury destitute foreigners or association with the blood of Judas.
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 690#975690
• The theological reason for his death: suicide out of remorseful penitence or struck dead by God for avarice and hubris.

[*]What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
BOTH. Judas purchased the field posthumously.





JW

[Difflugia]

Not sure why you have a problem with the last two they don't seem to be contradictions at all..

Matthew said that the "potter's field" was known as the Field of Blood because it was used as a place to bury foreigners. Acts said that Judas bought a field and died a gory death in it, so it was known as the Field of Blood. Neither story said anything like "among the reasons," but each presented its reason as the reason that a field was called "Field of Blood."

We assume Judas regretted his betrayal of Jesus.. And that lead to him committing suicide.. God did not strike him down.. Judas struck himself down..

The account in Acts doesn't appear to me to be a suicide. If you think it is, then it's not theologically in conflict.

[Difflugia]

Do you have a reference for point 4?

It seems obvious to me in context, but if you want proof that I'm at least not the only one that sees it that way, this is from page 19 of The Acts of the Apostles, by James D. G. Dunn:

In contrast, Luke, unlike Matthew (27.3), makes no attempt to depict Judas as repenting for his act of betrayal. On the contrary, Judas had been possessed by Satan (Luke 22.3), is shown as unrepentant (he bought a plot of land or small farm with ‘the reward of his wickedness’), his death is depicted in classic terms as the death of an evil man (cf. II Sam. 20.10; Wisd. Sol. 4.19; II Macc. 9.9), and he ‘went to his own place’ (1.25 — presumably hell). In Acts Judas stands with Herod (12.23), less so Ananias and Sapphira (5.1–10), as a fearful warning.

[1213]

...
[*]The reason for the "Field of Blood": a place to bury destitute foreigners or association with the blood of Judas.
[*]The theological reason for his death: suicide out of remorseful penitence or struck dead by God for avarice and hubris.[/list]....

Reason for the name blood field is that it was bought with blood money. And the reason is the same in both of them, because both of them tell the same story that it was bought with blood money.

The theological reason part, I don’t see how that is Biblical contradiction. Please explain how do you get that from the Bible?

[Tcg]

[*]What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
BOTH. Judas purchased the field posthumously.

That's a neat trick. How does a dead person buy property?


Tcg

[Difflugia]

The theological reason part, I don’t see how that is Biblical contradiction. Please explain how do you get that from the Bible?

If you simply don't think the passages mean what I think they do, then that's your harmonization, which is fine.

Acts has a series of vignettes that are all framed such that attempting to gain reward by an evil act toward God or the church results in a smiting:

Acts 5:1-6:

But a certain man named Ananias with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and brought a portion and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your power? How is it that you have thought this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." And Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, and they carried him out and buried him.

Acts 12:21-23:

And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, and sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people shouted, saying, "The voice of a god, and not of a man." And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

The death of Judas in Acts is rather abbreviated, but still the same sort of event. He received what he thought would be the earthly reward for his wickedness and God smote him with his actual reward.