Thanks for writing. Regarding the presence of 'problem passages' in the
Scriptures, you said:
> Here's one that might be a bit of a headache :-)
>
> A plain reading of Matthew's account suggests that Bethlehem was Mary
> and Joseph's home before the flight to Egypt, and that they only went
> to live in Nazareth because they heard that Archelaus was ruling in
> place of Herod. However, in Luke's account Nazareth was the original
> home and they only went to Bethlehem because of the census which
> required Joseph to go to the town of his birth.
>
> Which is the 'true' account?
> (There are several differences between the two accounts of the
> Christmas story which seem to me to be difficult to reconcile.)
>
But isn't it a fact that the first we hear of Bethlehem in Matthew's
gospel is that it was where Jesus was born (Mt.2:1)? Surely, it is
nowhere implied that this was his parents' natural home. But what other
points about the Incarnation do you find difficult to reconcile?
> In the Gospels, Judas went and hanged himself. The priests used the
> money which he had returned to buy a field (for burials? I can't
> remember the intended use right now) and that is why it became known
> as the field of blood.
> In Acts, Judas himself bought the field with the betrayal money, and
> when he entered it he fell headlong and his guts spilled out, and that
> is why it became known as the field of blood.
>
> Which is the 'true' account?
>
Yes, I would agree that the reader is faced with a problem here. The
first clearly indicates suicide; the second, possibly an act of divine
retribution (for it is not normal for a person who falls also to
burst!). Again, the matter of the purchasing of the field is
contradictory.
These ambiguities - seemingly impossible to resolve.- are clearly
intended to teach us something - for 'All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(2Tim.3:16,17).
The crux of the second reference was, of course, the divinely-ordained
impulse to appoint a replacement for Judas - and it is surely
interesting that 12 is thus clearly defined as a most significant
number! In this context, the manner of Iscariot's death was of minor
interest. This, of course, suggests that some degree of human error in
respect of non-essential detail is to be expected in this unique Book.
Perhaps we are intended to learn that the Holy Spirit does not directly
actuate the hand holding the pen!
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm