Jesus family tree?

[yesdachi]

Does anyone know how many brothers and/or sisters Jesus had?

All the info that I find is a bit sketchy at best. Any help would be appreciated.

[orangat]

Does anyone know how many brothers and/or sisters Jesus had?

All the info that I find is a bit sketchy at best. Any help would be appreciated.

None of course. Why else do you think Virgin Mary is called thus?

There is speculation that Joseph might be an elderly widower when he married Mary and might previously have had children of his own.

[Louis VI the Fat]

:balloon2:
Well, Jesus was raised in a rather un-Christian family.

He was concieved by a mother who used some kind of pre-modern IVF method to get pregnant.

As a result, he never knew his biological father. This led to severe psychological problems, with him at one point claiming he himself was his own father but also not.

Maybe as a result of this, he had a fondness for male 'companionship' as an adult. With sleepover parties in public parks and all.

He refused to follow in the footsteps of his non-biological father and didn't take over his business. Though the carpenting skills he learned as a youngster proved to come in quite handy towards the end of his life.
:balloon2:




:book:
Mark 6:3 states:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"

Apart from their names, we know nothing about them. With the exception of James, who is mentioned in a 49 A.D. source as rabbi in Jerusalem.

Catholics, obsessed with Mary's perpetual virginity, do however hold that we should not accept 'brother' in Mark 6:3 to mean brother.
:book:

[ajaxfetish]

Catholic doctrine claims that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth. The biblical record doesn't make that claim. As Louis mentioned, there is a mention of some brothers and sisters in Mark, though there is no definitive number given and no names for sisters. I've heard speculation that the books of James and Jude in the New Testament were written by two of those brothers, but I'm not sure what evidence there is or is not to support this. I also know of no other passages that refer to his siblings.

Ajax

[Mount Suribachi]

Matthew 13:55 also has the same passage as Louis quoted, mentioning James, Joseph, Judas and Simon.

Other passages

Matthew 12:47 "your mother and brothers are outside wanting to speak to you"

John 2:12 "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, brothers and his disciples"

Acts 1:14 "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers"

All of his family were sceptical of Jesus during his ministry, "For even his own brothers did not believe him" (Johnn 7:5). James is mentioned nowhere else in the gospels, nor is he listed as one of the 12 apostles (and shouldn't be confused with James, son of Zebedee or James son of Alphaeus). After Jesus's resurection he appeared to James (1 Cor 15:7) who then became a believer and one the leaders of the early church, and the other brothers took believers as wives and became missionaries. James oversaw the church in Jerusalem. He was advocated respect for Jewish law, but was flexible enough to admit gentiles into Christian fellowship (acts 15:12-21, 21:18-25). James is widely regarded to have written the Epistle of James, one of the most popular books of the New Testament IMO, due to its practical teaching on christian living and its emphasis on salvation by faith, a faith shown by good works and christian living.

We know little about Jude, other than his name, and that there is the book of Jude in the NT, whose author identifies himself as "a Servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James"

Joses/Joseph we know nothing else about

Same goes for Simon (not to be confused with the apostles Simon Peter and Simon the Canaanite).



There was also a kind of gravestone (Stele?) found in Jerusalem a few years ago, dated from the correct era that may well have belonged to one of Jesus's brothers (I forget which one, possibly James). Naturally it caused a controversy due to the different beliefs regarding Jesus's family held by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. A search on the internet should reveal more - was a fascinating find.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Read a book called the Messianic Legacy, it suggests that Jesus had at least one brother, some kids and a wife. Also the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail looks at it. Avoid the crap in the Da Vinci Code. The above books are much better imo

[lars573]

Except that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is just as much if not more BS than the DaVinci code.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Its certainly makes you think more than the Da Vinci Code. Some of it i don't agree with but certain chapters on the Priory De Sion, the Templars, the Red Serpent Deaths and some of the over parts are very interesting.

If you don't agree with the content it thats fair enough but to just lumb it as BS is fairly obtuse imo

[orangat]

:........

:book:
Mark 6:3 states:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"

Apart from their names, we know nothing about them. With the exception of James, who is mentioned in a 49 A.D. source as rabbi in Jerusalem.

Catholics, obsessed with Mary's perpetual virginity, do however hold that we should not accept 'brother' in Mark 6:3 to mean brother.
:book:

Considering that Jesus's previous occupation actually meant artisan instead of carpenter they may have a point.

[Kraxis]

Considering that Jesus's previous occupation actually meant artisan instead of carpenter they may have a point.
Of course that would need for us to consider that Josef and Mary married but never carried out that marriage in full. How likely is that?
Mary herself weren't holy, but she carried out her mission. That much is what you get. The bible does not indicate that she was a sort of married nun. And what would the point be of that? For her there is none.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Greek word 'tectone' relates to construction activities. It can mean builder, carpenter, artisan, architect. Recent investigation claims that Jesus probably was not from the poor, humble family background that tradition said he was. Hence the modern English translation of 'tectone' as more middle-class 'artisan' instead of lower-class, uneducated 'carpenter'.

The Greek word 'adelphos' means brother. Unlike tectone, it's meaning is less ambigious. Except through some very imaginative reading, it can only mean brother in the sense of sibling in Marc 6:3.

[lars573]

Its certainly makes you think more than the Da Vinci Code. Some of it i don't agree with but certain chapters on the Priory De Sion, the Templars, the Red Serpent Deaths and some of the over parts are very interesting.

If you don't agree with the content it thats fair enough but to just lumb it as BS is fairly obtuse imo
Well consider that the "Priory of Sion" was a hoax. It was cooked up 3 men in the early 60's. 1 was the english (IIRC) journalist who broke the story of the secret society, his "source" inside the Priory (a french guy who was the instigator of the whole farce), and a serealist author. They did it because the french guy wanted to provce that he was decended from the Merovingians and rightful heir to the French throne. Why was never dug into that much. After Holy Blood was published in 1980 it caused the same stir that the DaVinci code is now. And the 3 of them came clean that the "Priory of Sion" was fiction.

[Samurai Waki]

I always found it kind of funny that Mary is mentioned more in the Q'uran than in the Bible.

[Kraxis]

I always found it kind of funny that Mary is mentioned more in the Q'uran than in the Bible.
To me it is not. Though I didn't know that.

Jesus is extremely important to muslims, he is considered just a step behind Muhammed. Of course he is not devine, but important still. So that validates the inclusion on a 'grand' scale.
Why Mary has more imortance there could be argued that Islam was in fact trying to shake things up a bit. Women were kept on a short leash, think Taliban and it is not too far off. Then comes Islam, and it tries to open up society to the women (perhaps to gather more of a following?). How does it do that? By including the women in important tales. Remember that Muhammed's wifes are mentioned over and over again, at times even as sort of leaders (at least persons you should listen to).

On the other hand women in early christianity lost more and more of their position in society, to the point that they lost their soul (it was only in 320 something in Nicea that they got it back in the eyes of the church).
So is it surprising that Mary would be somewhat neglected in the bible? It has after all been pruned of all the unwanted material a few times in the first centuries, such as the gnostic gospels.
But the Qu'ran is holy so the early muslims didn't dare change the contents even if they didn't agree with the view on women.
Of course such has since been downplayed by some and the more binding contents have been enhanced.

Phiew... that was a lot.

[hellas1]

Hey all,

This is nice. Discussion, finally. Not just "Mod" talk! Yaaaoww!

Now for the serious stuff, ready?

I. The Orthodox position (Greek, perhaps others) says that Mary did have other children. James, Jesus's brother, was his brother! Right? Beyond that, not mentioned.
2. Catholic's don't believe this, Protestants do.
3. If you read Eusebius's History of the Church, you WILL find a reference to a certain: "Conon, a deacon" who lived in or around Jerusalem. Eusebius states that he is a cousin or relative of Jesus. Relatives don't live in vacuum! Right? They have kids!

Ultimately, here's what archaeology has proven:
1. Jesus was a real dude. Props to J.C...Love Ya' :jumping:
2. The Septuagint was the "Old Testament" or Tanach used in the time of Jesus.
3. Luke's Gospel and Acts are VERY historical. Refer to F.F. Bruce!!!
4. The Roman/Jewish setting for this ie. Tetrarch of Judea, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, etc., are real.
5. There are extra biblical sources that talk about Jesus! Wow!
Such as: The Toledoth Yeshu/Yeshua (NOT christian), Josephus (in the commonly published text it makes him out to say Jesus IS God's son, a Muslim version exists that says:"he was perhaps the son of god" or something to that effect, and other Rabbinical texts. Refer to Josh Mc'Dowell's:
Christianity that demands a verdict!

Check it out for yourselves! Just presenting!

[GoreBag]

I remember hearing that at least of one the disciples who had a hand in writing what would be collected later as the Bible was related to Jesus because they shared a mother. I don't bother much with Christian theology, so I don't have much more to add, but I imagine it's true.

[Flavius Clemens]

[QUOTE=Kraxis]
On the other hand women in early christianity lost more and more of their position in society, to the point that they lost their soul (it was only in 320 something in Nicea that they got it back in the eyes of the church).
QUOTE]

For what it's worth, I remember a collegue suggesting this to me several years ago, and at the time I checked with an ordained friend (I'm a licensed preacher myself, but only an amateur). After half an hour's digging I've finally found his reply, which he had cross checked with one of his former tutors who had gone on to become professor at Beeson Seminary and Samford University, USA:

His question
> You are needed to settle a question. I recall there was a council (not
> ecumenical ?) that at some point decided women had souls and could be
saved. They thought it was Council of Nicea that had to vote on whether
women were human. Finding where the misunderstanding arose
> would help.
>
> I've checked all I can and turn to you.

and the response

"The business about women is all complete myth. There was never any such council, nor any such problem."

i.e. whatever individual views there may have been it wasn't official doctrine women didn't have souls.

[Kraxis]

Ah... Interesting, nice to learn something new. It did seem strange that women could be in high regard in some of the first christian sects, then fall so completely from grace.
In any case, the position of women did deteriorate quite a lot in christianity. Perhaps not as a doctrinal setting, but one that seems to have been kept alive by all ranks.

Islam on the other hand was trust into a society that was enormously strict towards women. So it was rather liberal, and thus it sort of 'needed' to prove that stance. Today it is felt to be somewhat odd, as Islam in general isn't exactly considered liberal towards women.

[Aenarion]

Just my two cents ...

I believe that what is written in the Da Vinci Code makes perfect sense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the statement of the book and I completely agree with it!:juggle2:

Thanks,
Aenarion

[ajaxfetish]

I think those who take issue with the historicism of The DaVinci Code do so for its lack of evidential support, not its logic. Regardless of whether it makes sense, it is fiction.

Ajax

[doc_bean]

Catholic doctrine claims that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth.

Actually Catholic doctrine doesn't even assume Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It says that Mary was without 'the burden of sin caused by Adam and Eve'.

It's one of those little aspects of Catholicism they don't really talk about much.

[Kralizec]

I think those who take issue with the historicism of The DaVinci Code do so for its lack of evidential support, not its logic. Regardless of whether it makes sense, it is fiction.

Ajax

It's much worse then that. For example he claims that at an early point in history, catholicism was affected by Aztec rites (wtf). When he goes on claiming stuff like that it seems like he's not even trying to sound credible.

I liked Angels & Demons, though. After that reading the Da Vinci code was like a rehash of something he had done before, and better.

Brown is pure fiction and should be read as such.

[yesdachi]

Some great info everyone, thanks!:smile:

[Pontifex Rex]

There has also been some controversy over the translation of the word *brother*. It is wise to remember that this all occurred 2000 years ago and the writings have been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to whatever vernacular for the masses. They were submitted to scrutiny of dozens of councils and edited any number times and likely have little resemblance to the original texts. Roman Catholics have one view, Greek Orthodox a second and the poor fractured protestants are completely out of the running with various groups claiming A, B, C and others claiming 1, 2, 3.

It is simply a matter of faith and as such cannot be proven or disproved,... there is simply a lack of empirical evidence to support either side of the argument.

Cheers.

[Papewaio]

Why?

Why not just look at all the translations and see where they agree... if they have the same root translation and have no cross pollination of sources it would indicate any agreements are more likely to be correct.

Also accessing the earliest and least translated/edited scripture would be the best way to go.

Add in a review of the political system that was editing the scriputre for their own needs will give the ability to figure out why they left in or out various passages.

So my bet would be on the earliest scriptures closest to the source of where christianity grew up.

Also I think the statement that Catholics have one view and the Orthodox a second is an incorrect statement from an ordinal number point of view.

Orthodox predate Catholics, hence it should be:
Orthodox have one view and Catholics have a second... with the assumption that the Orthodox are not predated by any other church... which they were...

[Pontifex Rex]

Orthodox predate Catholics, hence it should be:
Orthodox have one view and Catholics have a second... with the assumption that the Orthodox are not predated by any other church... which they were...

I am not sure that I agree with this interpretation, I would contend that the Catholic (ie: universal) variant was far more established and that the Orthodox 'division' came about over doctrinal and dogmatic differences. The divisions within the church in the first 1000 years are well known. The final split occurred, in part, because the Greek, or Eastern Church, saw itself as the rightful successor to the secular seat of Christianity after the collapse of the western Roman Empire. The good bishops in Constantine's city were not all that keen on continuing to submit to the Pope in Rome when they considired the inhabitants of the new western kingdoms as little more than barbarians.


So my bet would be on the earliest scriptures closest to the source of where christianity grew up.

Aye, therein lies the rub. Where are these 'early' and unedited versions of the scriptures? I do not think anyone has a claim to their possession simply because almost all the most important writings occurred well after the events took place, in some cases as much as 200 years or more.

Cheers.

[Kraxis]

You are somwhat mistaken.

The Pope was the bishop of Rome, and had a special place, being the primary of the Patriachs, but he wasn't a ruler like he became later. The Patriachs were considered equal with the Pope having a bit more influence.

It was this shift by the Pope that put the final nail in the box. But that was just the last of many disputes. The real shift happened quite early as the Catholic church began to move away from the earlier Greek practices, which was kept in the east.

So while Catholisism can be said to be as old as Orthodoxy it doesn't contain equal amounts of original christian practices.

[Pontifex Rex]

The Pope was the bishop of Rome, and had a special place, being the primary of the Patriachs, but he wasn't a ruler like he became later. The Patriachs were considered equal with the Pope having a bit more influence...
It was this shift by the Pope that put the final nail in the box. But that was just the last of many disputes. The real shift happened quite early as the Catholic church began to move away from the earlier Greek practices, which was kept in the east....So while Catholisism can be said to be as old as Orthodoxy it doesn't contain equal amounts of original christian practices.

This is true to an extent but seems to have an eastern bias to it. One of the reasons there was tension between the east and the western churches was linked to the changes in both societies as the western empire collapsed. Whereas Latin was the language of the original empire, what was to become Byzantium became more and more Greek as time past. Since there was more political stability in the east it was easier for the Greek church to adopt its practices and develop a different doctrine than those in the Latin west. That being the case I do not find that the early church was dominated by Greek practices that were discarded by the west. I think it may be more arguable that the eastern Church became more Greek,...and less Latin,... as time past. This in itself created more friction with Rome as the eastern Patriarchs went more and more in their own direction and the Roman See was unable to exercise doctrinal control.

I think I can see where we are going with this, the argument is almost as old as the church itself. Still, I enjoy the discourse.

Cheers.

[Kraxis]

I'm not much of a christianity scholar, if at all.
But you base your opinion on the Pope directing the doctrine from very early times, a sort of boss for the church. I base mine on the Patriachs all being of equal status, though with the Pope's words carrying more weight.

But if we look at the very earliest times of christian practices, the bishop wasn't a ruler really, but rather the most knowledgeable of the local christians. They one they would turn to when they got confused or weren't in agreement, an arbiter you might say. When the bishops met they would discuss things equally. Later the Patriarchs were made as the church expanded too much for the bishops to all meet, or even just locally. But the position was in basic concepts the same.

The Pope gained his first real 'power' when Charlemagne had him crown him. Befroe that the Pope could yell and scream but seemingly even the western bishops cared little for him. That is also noted in the amount, and contents, of correspondance going to and from Rome. Prior to the coronation it was mainly personal and secular stuff, afterwards kings sent their request for blessings of their rule and so forth. Obviously he had by then been recognized as an authority on religious matters.
You can also see this in the dispute between the Pope and the HRE Emperors over who would dictate the doctrine of the church in Germany. It came relatively late, and is kind of odd if you think about it.
If the Pope had always been God's representative on Earth, then why would the HRE Emperors suddenly begin to balk when he tried to meddle in their religious affairs? Clearly the opinion on the Pope's position was not very certain even in the Western world.

[Kommodus]

It is wise to remember that this all occurred 2000 years ago and the writings have been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to whatever vernacular for the masses. They were submitted to scrutiny of dozens of councils and edited any number times and likely have little resemblance to the original texts.


Aye, therein lies the rub. Where are these 'early' and unedited versions of the scriptures? I do not think anyone has a claim to their possession simply because almost all the most important writings occurred well after the events took place, in some cases as much as 200 years or more.

When it comes to the NT, there are quite a few early manuscripts to help us establish the text of the original Greek (which most of the NT was written in). I just found this site with a helpful summary:

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Here's an excerpt:



We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.


ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A

As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.


You could also have a look at the wikipedia article, which has quite a lot of info and differing viewpoints, but also discusses the dating of the original writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Or you could just do a google search for something like "early new testament texts," which will give you a lot of hits.

In any case, the point is this:

1. It's been established that most of the writings occurred fairly soon after the original events in question.

2. There's quite a bit of early textual evidence for what these writings said.

3. Thus, I wouldn't assume that simply because multiple translations and copies have occurred, that the texts we read now have significantly deviated from the originals. You might assume this if you subscribe to the APAS (Ancient People Are Stupid) assumption, but in this case, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Remember that in the Middle Ages, one of the reasons that church doctrine went so awry was that copies of the Bible were simply not widely available - not because they had been changed to the whims of church leadership. If no one has a copy of the text, you can tell people it says whatever you want it to.

Edit: The formatting of the table in my quote didn't come out right. You'll have to visit the site to see it correctly.

[Pontifex Rex]

Like you I do not profess to be an expert on the inner workings of the early Christian church (east or west) most of my impressions are drawn from the more secular elements of history between about 300 and 1000 AD.

What has become evident to me over the years as I have read more and more on the history of late antiquity and post-Roman Europe was how utterly disrupted western sociaty had become and how much information was lost in the period mentioned above. The barbarian invasions, the rise of Islam and loss to Europe of the great eastern libraries, then the Norse and so on. Throw in a few pandemics, tribal warfare among the new arrivals and the Huns and it is little wonder that the west survived at all.

Through all of this warfare and chaos what has caught my attention was how sociology played a role in almost all the events (not really a surprise when one thinks about it). The way the Byzantines, Franks, Goths and others saw the world had a direct influence on events and their culture was more often than not the driving force behind events, far more than the actual movements of armies and the battles fought here or there.

Oh, my. We seemed to have completely hijacked this thread. Apologies to all. :creep:

[Puzz3D]

On the other hand women in early christianity lost more and more of their position in society, to the point that they lost their soul (it was only in 320 something in Nicea that they got it back in the eyes of the church).
I found this reference about how that belief got started: http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/object.html

Wikipedia has a good page on what was decided at the First Council of Nicea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Puzz3D]

Ultimately, here's what archaeology has proven:
1. Jesus was a real dude.
Actually, this has not been proven. Jesus could be the amalgamation of more than one messianic figure.



3. Luke's Gospel and Acts are VERY historical.
The two places where the gospel tries to insert Jesus into the historical record are preposerous events: the massacre of the innocents by Herod and the assembling of the Jewish church leaders on passover to judge Jesus. The first is base on stories in existence about mythological figures, and the second simply never would have happen on passover.



5. There are extra biblical sources that talk about Jesus! Wow!
Such as: The Toledoth Yeshu/Yeshua (NOT christian), Josephus (in the commonly published text it makes him out to say Jesus IS God's son, a Muslim version exists that says:"he was perhaps the son of god" or something to that effect, and other Rabbinical texts.
The Flavius Josephus (c.37 AD/CE - c.100) quote about Jesus from his Antiquities of the Jews (c 93 - 94) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities is questionable. The style of the writing doesn't match Josephus' style. This entry could have been altered or wholly inserted at later date since we don't have the original document but only copies of copies. Even if we had the original, it wouldn't be a first hand account about Jesus. There is quite a bit of info about him at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Although neutrality and factually disputed, wikipedia has an article on the existence of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ

[Kraxis]

The Flavius Josephus (c.37 AD/CE - c.100) quote about Jesus from his Antiquities of the Jews (c 93 - 94) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities is questionable. The style of the writing doesn't match Josephus' style. This entry could have been altered or wholly inserted at later date since we don't have the original document but only copies of copies. Even if we had the original, it wouldn't be a first hand account about Jesus. There is quite a bit of info about him at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Although neutrality and factually disputed, wikipedia has an article on the existence of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ
While I never jumped into this, my lecturer during my Bachelor project was dead sure that Jesus was real. He is a Roman lecturer mind you, and he claimed he was mentioned in imperial court proceedings as a rebelrouser. You know one day the Emperor has his bi-monthly (whatever timeperiod) imperial update, then people from the various regions chimes in what has been going on. Apparently the update from Judea contained a mention of a guy that fooled around preaching peace and all kind of foolishness.
But I never looked this up though as my project was 'Why it took so long to subjugate Hispania'. But during the 'classes' we did read a number of similar proceedings, though they were rather decayed. In fact it was a compilation of later interpretations and what was deemed to be the original. Quite fun...

And P. Rex, yeah I guess we have said what we wanted to.
Save one thing... You are right the west suffered a quite significant number of upheavals, while the east was far more stable. But that only underlines my argument. Social structures change whenever everything else does, during stable periods it remains.

[Pontifex Rex]

And P. Rex, yeah I guess we have said what we wanted to.
Save one thing... You are right the west suffered a quite significant number of upheavals, while the east was far more stable. But that only underlines my argument. Social structures change whenever everything else does, during stable periods it remains.

I would have liked to get into some more detail but I am without my sources (1 am away from home on a project) and I won't have access to them for at least another month. Once a discussion gets involved enough I like to be able to back up my statements with references to professional scholarship. This way I do not have to rely solely on memory (fallable at the best of times) and can back up more controversial statements.

Cheers.

[orangat]

Actually Catholic doctrine doesn't even assume Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It says that Mary was without 'the burden of sin caused by Adam and Eve'.

It's one of those little aspects of Catholicism they don't really talk about much.

I'm certain you're incorrect here. Catholic's believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Catholic's believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.I believe they do so indeed.

doc_bean makes an important point though about a perpetual mistake. The mistake that 'immaculate conception' means Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. It refers not to any immaculate or 'virgin' conception of Jesus, but to the conception of Mary - who was free from hereditary sin.