m King David to Solomon while in Luke it came from King David to the prophet Nathan.2.In Luke, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to participate in a census when Jesus was born. In Matthew The whole family actually live in Bethlehem. 3.The two different worshippers, shepherds versus the wise men.Many more came after that. Borg’s assumption is that the birth stories affirm the Lordship of Christ. But all these stories are merely metaphorical to distinguish Jesus from the rest of the humanity. Personally I found both writers to be extremely persuasive and conceptual with their argument. Wright is trying to make people see in a way of questioning why would Matthew and Luke make up such a ‘ridiculous’ concept if it were not true at all. And if these were not true at all how could the two stories support each other. On the other hand Borg is arguing by elaborating Matthew and Luke’s “historical and data errors”. However I favor Wright’s ideas. I cannot say that Borg’s argument is weak. Both arguments are well supported and have clear concepts and logics. But in my opinion as one believes the bible, one would also believe that what it says is true. I am not someone who believes totally in the inerrancy of the bible; I believe that God inspires the bible. But if the virgin birth is untrue, how could God who inspires the bible let such a misguided and irresponsible concept to be part of the bible. If the virgin birth is a metaphorical story just to emphasize Jesus’ difference than normal humans, then we might as well call it a myth. Personally I believe in the bible as a whole package. Some people call it a “blind faith”. I think why should I struggle so many human logics with human and biological understanding to explain spiritual happenings. For this argument I raise a question, if this would mark him off the rest of us, then how different would Adam be? Adam was created out...
