[ConsistentLibertarian]

The topic is the virgin birth of Jesus. Three different claims go by that description. I distinguished them above. That's all.

There's a latin ditty that sums up the view: "virginitas ante partum, virginitas in partu, virginitas post partum".

It's hard to tell, but I take it that the British Clergy are doubting the "in partu" clause whereas people here want to defend the "ante partum" line.

[aruanan]

There's a latin ditty that sums up the view: "virginitas ante partum, virginitas in partu, virginitas post partum".

Having a baby miraculously conceived doesn't confer non-virginity any more than would breaking the hymen through birth confer non-virginity. It isn't the presence of a hymen that defines virginity, but the not having had sexual intercourse. As far as the virginitas post partum is concerned: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." Matthew 1:24-25