D
dolphinlove
Guest
What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?
• He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
• He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)
Answer:
This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.
In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.
Khalfan reply to this:
I am sorry, but I was asking about what he did with the blood money. You said one passage is the summery of the other. Which one is summery of which one? Can you tell me on what basis is that ‘closer scrutiny*’ done? Isn’t that an assumption? In short, the question is who bought the field, Judas or the priests?
Question number 2
Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?
• Yes (Matthew 14:5)
• No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)
Jesus saw a man sit at the tax collectors office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?
• Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
• Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)
Answer:
The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.
It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.
Khalfan answer to this:
OK. Since the possibility* (An assumption again) you mentioned remains I agree on that, Even though we don’t have a clear picture. But in the second one, you confirmed that it was Matthew. It was also written by Matthew (9:9). Why he didn’t use like ‘I was sitting at tax collectors office’ or something like that? Are you sure, the Gospels of Matthew is written by Matthew himself or is there any possibility for a second person?
• He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
• He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)
Answer:
This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.
In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.
Khalfan reply to this:
I am sorry, but I was asking about what he did with the blood money. You said one passage is the summery of the other. Which one is summery of which one? Can you tell me on what basis is that ‘closer scrutiny*’ done? Isn’t that an assumption? In short, the question is who bought the field, Judas or the priests?
Question number 2
Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?
• Yes (Matthew 14:5)
• No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)
Jesus saw a man sit at the tax collectors office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?
• Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
• Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)
Answer:
The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.
It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.
Khalfan answer to this:
OK. Since the possibility* (An assumption again) you mentioned remains I agree on that, Even though we don’t have a clear picture. But in the second one, you confirmed that it was Matthew. It was also written by Matthew (9:9). Why he didn’t use like ‘I was sitting at tax collectors office’ or something like that? Are you sure, the Gospels of Matthew is written by Matthew himself or is there any possibility for a second person?