Was Jesus Tempted by Lust

[blü 2]

Sin is simply a distortion of the natural and or divine order. Sexual desire is a part of the natural order (even human beings without concupiscence would experience it) but not beyond its natural ordering which is in marriage and procreation.

I find that a peculiar analysis, imposed on nature, not found there. The important moral values in sex are honesty, mutual consideration and responsibility, not chastity as such or marriage as such. (Chastity is a recognized form of self-denial, but self-denial is simply one of the legitimate options.)

To understand this think of how often it is that people do very stupid things when they listen to their genitals over their heads.

Tell me about it!

Passion when ordered properly is a good thing. The desire to get married and experience sexual intimacy is a good and natural thing. Feeling anger in the face of legitimate outrage is a good thing.

Nonetheless that contradicts your claim for Jesus, who, you said, was not subject to passion. Amending this to make him subject only to 'proper' passion makes him indistinguishable from the great majority of the human race.

 

[Glaurung]

The first example doesn't make for much of a different read when saying it is agape love. It would read "One of his disciples, the one he covenant loved, laid on his bosom". I never really noticed Jesus being that close to his disciples, that's super close, I normally am only that close with immediate family like spouse and children. Mom maybe when I was a child.

People in Jesus' time ate reclining on their sides, not sitting on tables. So the text makes perfect sense.

Both basic decency and common sense would tell you that this icon isn't a depiction of homosexuality. Same thing with the Gospel text here. You don't need the Greek to tell you what is actually being said is not at all sexual. Skwim's reading is nothing but a hamfisted attempt to be offensive, nothing more.

 

[blü 2]

You don't think maybe humans are meant to be that close but our culture closes us off to where we gotta be thinking something sexual. Just throwing that out there, all that you posted sounds very supiciously like temptation in lust.

And fair enough too. If you're human there's nothing wrong with enjoying it.

 

[Skwim]

That's pretty easy to do.

John 13:23 Greek Text Analysis
John 19:26 Greek Text Analysis
John 21:7 Greek Text Analysis

As you can see, some form of the word agape is used in all three examples.


Agape - Wikipedia

.​

 

[idav]

People in Jesus' time ate reclining on their sides, not sitting on tables. So the text makes perfect sense.

Both basic decency and common sense would tell you that this icon isn't a depiction of homosexuality. Same thing with the Gospel text here. You don't need the Greek to tell you what is actually being said is not at all sexual. Skwim's reading is nothing but a hamfisted attempt to be offensive, nothing more.

It isn't the reclining part that caught my attention, but the part that says "the one jesus loved", and in the Greek analysis you pointed out it says he was laying on the bosom of Jesus, as in laying his head on his chest.

 

[Glaurung]

.​

Exactly, agape (in its various forms, as Greek is an inflected language) means to love someone in the highest, most selfless way possible. I don't see how you think that chart contradicts me. Jesus' love for Saint John was that of agape, which is never used to describe sexual affection which is eros. So what exactly are you trying to prove? Nothing in that definition helps your case.

I mean have you never experienced profound non-sexual love before? For example, love for your mother or that of a dear friend?

 

[Grandliseur]

Was Jesus ever tempted by lust? Didn't see anything in the Bible, he was tempted with material gain and tempted to show off gods power but women or even the thought of sex never seemed to bother the guy which I find kinda far-fetched. I find it more likely that Jesus had been with Mary Magdalene, who found the tomb. That or was Jesus asexual.

Bonus question
How could Jesus die for sins he had no chance of ever committing?

If you look at the many years it took before Adam and Eve began to produce children regularly, the supposition that perfect man has less sexual drive than imperfect man stares us in the eyes.
As to Jesus being tempted, we read this:

Heb 2: 17 Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.​

If Jesus had had sexual relations with anyone, the ransom would have become void.

 

[Glaurung]

I find that a peculiar analysis, imposed on nature, not found there. The important moral values in sex are honesty, mutual consideration and responsibility, not chastity as such or marriage as such. (Chastity is a recognized form of self-denial, but self-denial is simply one of the legitimate options.)

The question necessitates the presumption of a Christian worldview in its answer, which is that the world and the natural activities of all beings are rationally ordered towards a teleological end. Sexuality serves the teleological end of procreation, even if not every sexual act is explicitly procreative in intent. To sever sex from the bonds that procreation demands (marriage and family) while not strictly speaking unnatural (and indeed God did overlook polygamy for a particular time) is nonetheless still a grave sin. The Christian view is that God intended humans to pair bond. Jesus as you probably know was quite emphatic on that point.

Nonetheless that contradicts your claim for Jesus, who, you said, was not subject to passion. Amending this to make him subject only to 'proper' passion makes him indistinguishable from the great majority of the human race.

Jesus was not subject to concupiscence (the tendency for our passions to become sinful) because he did not suffer original sin. He still had all the human emotions, but emotion (or rather passion) under the complete mastery of reason as God had intended. It would not have been sinful for Jesus (as human) to take a spouse but being God it would have been inappropriate.

 

[blü 2]

To sever sex from the bonds that procreation demands (marriage and family) while not strictly speaking unnatural (and indeed God did overlook polygamy for a particular time) is nonetheless still a grave sin.

The difficulty is, I see no immorality or amorality in what you're calling a 'grave sin'. The morality I see is in the behavior of the people, not in the performance of a ceremony.

 

[Kemosloby]

I would say he didn't have it on his mind. Probably had some offers, but would be a hypocrite if he took any because he wasn't married.. But as the master of fate, Lord of all creation, who doesn't feel like they've been blanked once or twice?

 

[Glaurung]

The difficulty is, I see no immorality or amorality in what you're calling a 'grave sin'. The morality I see is in the behavior of the people, not in the performance of a ceremony.

I don't expect you to. But I can perhaps get you to understand it though a Christian lens.

Marriage is an act wherein you promise both God and your spouse to remain faithful to that spouse with all the responsibilities therein for life. It's essentially a covenant. (God seems to be big on covenants) It's not the ceremony in and of itself that gives marriage its moral value, it's the promises you've made before God. By marriage you gain the right of sexual intimacy with a person but you also take on lifelong responsibilities to both that person and any resulting children.

You don't necessarily need to be a believer to see the societal value in that. We can see right now that society is becoming increasingly dysfunctional in the family sphere as our sexual morals loosen, especially for poorer minorities. We're even on the cusp of old diseases coming back resistant to anti-antibiotics. The collective tab for our sexual recklessness will have to be paid eventually.

 

[metis]

Was Jesus ever tempted by lust?

I would have to assume so because if he wasn't then he'd not be human.

 

[Kenny]

Was Jesus ever tempted by lust?

I would say yes because he was tempted in all points like unto us. The difference is that he didn't yield to it and so was declared to be without sin. (Obviously only going by what the book says--whether one agrees or not with the book is another story)

 

[Patti]

If Jesus was tempted by lust isn't this the same as succumbing to a vice, which, in the end, is a sin?

 

[Kenny]

If Jesus was tempted by lust isn't this the same as succumbing to a vice, which, in the end, is a sin?

Not really. It isn't the temptation that is a sin... its what you do with it.

For an example: When Satan said to Jesus "turn the stone into bread", in that he was hungered it is a temptation. However his response to the temptation was "it is written" and then followed what was written.

Succumbing to the vice is a result of not resisting the temptation.

 

[idav]

I would say yes because he was tempted in all points like unto us. The difference is that he didn't yield to it and so was declared to be without sin. (Obviously only going by what the book says--whether one agrees or not with the book is another story)

I am shocked there would never even be a mention of such a temptation. The Buddha had such a temptation and it's said he was able to resist. I guess going by "was tempted in all points" then we can assume some human tried to hit on Jesus?

 

[Kenny]

I am shocked there would never even be a mention of such a temptation.

Why do you find it necessary to have every temptation mentioned?

The Buddha had such a temptation and it's said he was able to resist.

Yes, each of us have areas that we can resist. Out of curiosity... did Buddha say he had the capacity to turn rocks into bread?

I guess going by "was tempted in all points" then we can assume some human tried to hit on Jesus?

Do you think he was exempt on being hit on?

 

[Fool]

Was Jesus ever tempted by lust? Didn't see anything in the Bible, he was tempted with material gain and tempted to show off gods power but women or even the thought of sex never seemed to bother the guy which I find kinda far-fetched. I find it more likely that Jesus had been with Mary Magdalene, who found the tomb. That or was Jesus asexual.

Bonus question
How could Jesus die for sins he had no chance of ever committing?

lust isn't exclusive to sexual desire. lust is a desire for any type of socio-economic gain..


Lust

 

[Kenny]

I find that a peculiar analysis, imposed on nature, not found there. The important moral values in sex are honesty, mutual consideration and responsibility, not chastity as such or marriage as such. (Chastity is a recognized form of self-denial, but self-denial is simply one of the legitimate options.)

The issue this creates, however, is how does one establish that one's personal moral values are the correct ones?

 

[metis]

BTW, one problem that I had with the OP is that I can't remember what "lust" is?