That is NOT making a decision to buy a field.
It is when you do so, knowing that you will still be held responsible for whatever happens with your blood money.
What they "told" him makes no difference, what does make a difference is their "actions" and by their actions they took responsibility for it.
Their actions were due to the fact that (by law and ritual) they HAD TO get rid of it. They couldn’t keep it; nor could they keep anything purchased with it. And, few (if any) would take it, knowing how it was procured.
Don't you see how silly that sounds? You throw money at me and then go hang your self and I decide how that money is spent but yet i don't by that very action take responsibility for it? Today and 2000 years ago that would be viewed as taking responsibility for it. If what you say was correct it doesn't show in the intention of the writer. It shows a contradiction.
Once again, you ignore the ancient context and the issue, regarding blood money and the ritualistic stigma attached with it. We don't have this in our society. So, your attempts to make scenarios and compare it with that of Judas don’t work. Just because the concept of Judas' being held responsible for his blood money sounds "silly" to you doesn't mean that such was invalid, with regards to ancient Israel. The priests thought it anything but "silly". Otherwise, I’m sure they could think of a lot of things to do with that money besides buying a plot for dead people.
No it doesn't, even if Judas was still alive when they purchased it. He released ownership of the money when he threw it and the priests assumed ownership whether they wanted to or not when they used it to buy a field. Blood money has nothing to do with it becuase it's blood money is simply a point of view as followers of jesus would see it as blood money, the present establishment wouldn't and even if they did, it doesn't matter.
Blood money has everything to do with it, in that context (BTW, the priests were NOT followers of Jesus and they referred to it as blood money). Again, why would a field, used for burying dead people, be purchased, if the priests could accept the money? And, of all the fields, why is it that the one purchased just happened to be where the splattered corpse of the man, responsible for all of this, lied?
They had no choice but to get rid of it.
Seriousness of the issue? Any seriousness is implied by the person trying to interpret it to make it mean what they want it to mean. I'm simply taking the text it self, the plain meaning of both sentences. And these sentences clearly outline that the actually story has changed whether by accident or by just hearing to different stories and writing them down.
In any case it clearly shows that fact that the NT is not the 100% word of God but based partly on hear say.
No, the seriousness is defined by the context of the scenario and time period involved. Your not thinking it was serious has no bearing on the situation at that time.
The story hasn't changed one bit. Neither the account in Matthew nor the account in Acts conflicts with one another. That is why both can be used to give a more thorough account of what happened. Why skeptics have a problem with that is beyond me.
Judas tried to return the money; but, the priests didn’t take it (Matthew). In despair, he throws the money to the ground, runs off, and hangs himself (Matthew). Since it was during Passover and before the Sabbath (Matthew, Luke), nobody was going to touch him to take him down. His rotting corpse falls and splatters, with his bowels spilling over a field (Acts), which would become known as the “Field of Blood” (Matthew, Acts).
The priests had to get rid of the money, by law; but, they couldn’t keep it or anything bought with it. So, they meet and decide to get that field where Judas’ body is (Matthew). This is why Luke’s account states that Judas purchased that field (Acts). His treachery earned the “wages of iniquity”, used to get that field in his name.
There would be no “Field of Blood” had Judas not betrayed Jesus. So, crediting him with buying that field hardly constitutes a contradiction, especially in light of how the Israelites viewed money earned by shedding innocent blood, which Judas admits doing.