Was Jesus Tempted by Lust

[idav]

Again, interesting. However, there's no mention of Lazarus, the "he" mentioned in John 11:3 being a disciple.

According to THIS source the 12 disciples of Jesus were

Peter
James
John
Andrew
Bartholomew or Nathanael
James, the Lesser or Younger
Judas
Jude or Thaddeus
Matthew or Levi
Philip
Simon the Zealot
Thomas​

This is odd situation can probably be explained by the fact that the use of "love" in John 11:3 comes from s φιλέω, phileō. Whereas the "love" used in the other John passages is ἀγαπάω, agapaō.

.


.

The article suggested Lazarus as a possibility and gives the rational but most people believe the beloved was named John.

 

[blü 2]

Looks like it was mentioned six times and some theories suggest the disciple Jesus loved could have been Mary Magdeline but apparently that is a bit more difficult to prove without losing biblical consistency.
Disciple whom Jesus loved - Wikipedia

John 21 says ─

20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"
21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
​

21:21 τοῦτον οὖν ἰδὼν ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ κύριε οὗτος δὲ τί

οὗτος houtos, 'this man', is masculine. 'This woman' would be οὗτα.

I don't want to be old-fashioned and rule out a transgender Mary Magdalene, but however that goes, John 21 says the Beloved Disciple is male.

 

[Glaurung]

Whoa there! Settle down a bit. Never said a thing about homoeroticism. Only that I thought that Jesus had homosexual feelings for the "follower Jesus loved very much." Whether these rose to homoeroticism can only be speculated at.

Your thoughts are factitious.

And, of course, you're compelled to invalidate Strong's use of "to love dearly" in describing the use of "agape" in the scriptures I quoted. It too easily leaves open the possibility of eros love, something you obviously could never, never admit to or even speculate about.

You keep holding on to the 'dearly' modifier as if it should be taken for granted that 'dearly' necessarily implies a romantic connotation. Or that a translation which makes use of an adverb has innate significance beyond conceptual approximation.

The word here is agape, not to love dearly. The phrasing of 'loving dearly' is an approximation, as is almost all translation. (If you have ever studied a foreign language to any significant level you'll know that translation between two languages is rarely 1:1). That an adverb/noun combination can in certain contexts have a particular connotation in English does not mean that it is appropriate to carry that connotation to another word of a different language simply because that adverb/noun combination is used as a possible translation. Especially when that translated word in its language is by definition contrasted against the connotation you want to attach to it.

Not necessarily--- like it or not, Strong's use of "to love dearly" leaves the door open.

No it doesn't. I don't want to type it out again so I'll just copy and paste it.

That an adverb/noun combination can in certain contexts have a particular connotation in English does not mean that it is appropriate to carry that connotation to another word of a different language simply because that adverb/noun combination is used as a possible translation. Especially when that translated word in its language is by definition contrasted against the connotation you want to attach to it.

You can't ignore that even a modicum of research will tell you that agape is non-sexual.

Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agápē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God".[1] The word is not be confused with philia, brotherly love, as it embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. The noun form first occurs in the Septuagint, but the verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead".[2] Other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood, or generally non-sexual affection) and eros (an affection of a sexual nature).

Within Christianity, agape is considered to be the love originating from God or Christ for mankind.[3] In the New Testament, it refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one's fellow man.[4] Some contemporary writers have sought to extend the use of agape into non-religious contexts.[5] [6]

The concept of agape has been widely examined within its Christian context.[7] It has also been considered in the contexts of other religions,[8] religious ethics,[9] and science.[10]

Agape - Wikipedia

"But... But.. love dearly can be sexual in English" isn't an argument.

Over-wrought responses like this only make you look desperate, which is becoming more evident with each post you make here. And, we both know my "connotations" were decently reasoned, even if you don't agree with them. . . . .or maybe you don't know.

It's near impossible to argue against sophistry. I mean you can claim to be "well reasoned" all you want but that doesn't make you right. Have you any relevant literature to quote where agape is used to describe romantic investment?

This was one person Jesus had singled out for a different kind of love than the love he had for the other eleven disciples. A very important love to Jesus. Why else mention it, and mention it four times?

I have had quite a few friends come and go in my time. Of course while I liked the company of all I would call a friend there were some friends who held my affection to a higher degree than others. Naturally there was that friendship over and above the others which would hold unique importance to me. The beloved disciple was simply the disciple whom Christ held to the highest personal degree. Only in the mind of someone who is seeking to be offensive for offensive sake would claim that this implies a romantic dimension. You didn't have a best friend in high-school?

Nope, which is why the writers choose to use the euphemisms they did.

Except that these texts were never written with the intention of becoming a scripture. But in any case, I'm sure the Church Fathers would have noticed "euphemisms". If anything they would have been inclined to overreach in finding anything that could potentially be construed so monstrously.

But, dear Musing Bassist, it's much more than just the word [which see below]. It's also the writers' insistence in showing that for Jesus one of his disciples merited a special love. A love so special and important they believed it was worth mentioning 4 times.

I can tell you with confidence that the motive was not insinuating a romantic interest.

Not the way it's used in the scripture I quoted according to Strongs AND your own source, which said this usage is used only five times in the Bible. So, being a unique use of "agape," you can stop going on and on about its common meaning.

That a word is only used a handful of times does not mean that its usage is unique in meaning.

 

[Skwim]

Not the way it's used in the scripture I quoted according to Strongs AND your own source, which said this usage is used only five times in the Bible. So, being a unique use of "agape," you can stop going on and on about its common meaning.

AND YET . . . . .

You keep holding on to the 'dearly' modifier as if it should be taken for granted that 'dearly' necessarily implies a romantic connotation. Or that a translation which makes use of an adverb has innate significance beyond conceptual approximation.

The word here is agape, not to love dearly. The phrasing of 'loving dearly' is an approximation, as is almost all translation. (If you have ever studied a foreign language to any significant level you'll know that translation between two languages is rarely 1:1). That an adverb/noun combination can in certain contexts have a particular connotation in English does not mean that it is appropriate to carry that connotation to another word of a different language simply because that adverb/noun combination is used as a possible translation. Especially when that translated word in its language is by definition contrasted against the connotation you want to attach to it.

No it doesn't. I don't want to type it out again so I'll just copy and paste it.

That an adverb/noun combination can in certain contexts have a particular connotation in English does not mean that it is appropriate to carry that connotation to another word of a different language simply because that adverb/noun combination is used as a possible translation. Especially when that translated word in its language is by definition contrasted against the connotation you want to attach to it.

You can't ignore that even a modicum of research will tell you that agape is non-sexual.

Agape - Wikipedia

"But... But.. love dearly can be sexual in English" isn't an argument.

It's near impossible to argue against sophistry. I mean you can claim to be "well reasoned" all you want but that doesn't make you right. Have you any relevant literature to quote where agape is used to describe romantic investment?

I have had quite a few friends come and go in my time. Of course while I liked the company of all I would call a friend there were some friends who held my affection to a higher degree than others. Naturally there was that friendship over and above the others which would hold unique importance to me. The beloved disciple was simply the disciple whom Christ held to the highest personal degree. Only in the mind of someone who is seeking to be offensive for offensive sake would claim that this implies a romantic dimension. You didn't have a best friend in high-school?

Except that these texts were never written with the intention of becoming a scripture. But in any case, I'm sure the Church Fathers would have noticed "euphemisms". If anything they would have been inclined to overreach in finding anything that could potentially be construed so monstrously.

I can tell you with confidence that the motive was not insinuating a romantic interest.

That a word is only used a handful of times does not mean that its usage is unique in meaning.

HAVE A GOOD DAY.

 

[DavidFirth]

*smiles* I just posted it. Feel free to scroll up and reread.

Indeed. So you know the extent of your wisdom. Pfft.

 

[DavidFirth]

Still no reasoned reply from you.

I take it reasoning isn't something you do.

There is no reasoning with the devil. His reason is all he hears.

 

[blü 2]

There is no reasoning with the devil. His reason is all he hears.

Ah, reason is the devil's whore, as Marty Luther said.

That's the loser's wail, the irrational dude's sulk.

 

[DavidFirth]

Ah, reason is the devil's whore, as Marty Luther said.

That's the loser's wail, the irrational dude's sulk.

I see you're well acquainted with 'im.

 

[idav]

There is no reasoning with the devil. His reason is all he hears.

Why didn't the devil throw some women towards Jesus, certainly that would make for a valid test? From the way the thread is going maybe the devil should have thrown some men toward Jesus to tempt him instead.

 

[DavidFirth]

Why didn't the devil throw some women towards Jesus, certainly that would make for a valid test? From the way the thread is going maybe the devil should have thrown some men toward Jesus to tempt him instead.

Good question. I wouldn't recommend seeking out the source, however.

 

[Kenny]

But it could only be in Satan's hand because Yahweh wanted it that way. He's omniscient, so he created Satan with full knowledge of the consequences, after all.

I don't agree... when my children were small, I knew when they were about to do wrong but free-will always has that potential. I was omniscient, so to speak, but it was what it was. I also knew how to fix it. They later thanked me for it.

 

[idav]

Good question. I wouldn't recommend seeking out the source, however.

You keep saying that Jesus was tempted in all ways but this can't be true if temptation of lust is lacking. So for hebrews 4:15 to be true it should go without saying he was tempted by sex, though you don't seem to want to say it. He could have just married and then t wouldn't be a sin.

 

[Kenny]

You keep saying that Jesus was tempted in all ways but this can't be true if temptation of lust is lacking. So for hebrews 4:15 to be true it should go without saying he was tempted by sex, though you don't seem to want to say it. He could have just married and then t wouldn't be a sin.

It sounds like there is a disconnect between temptation and actual sin. Temptation doesn't equate to sin,

 

[SalixIncendium]

Indeed. So you know the extent of your wisdom. Pfft.

I do. Sadly, those who remain closed-minded won't be fortunate enough to realize it. *shrugs*

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

John 21 says ─

20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"
21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
​

21:21 τοῦτον οὖν ἰδὼν ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ κύριε οὗτος δὲ τί

οὗτος houtos, 'this man', is masculine. 'This woman' would be οὗτα.

I don't want to be old-fashioned and rule out a transgender Mary Magdalene, but however that goes, John 21 says the Beloved Disciple is male.

Of course, assuming that no one mistranslated or intentionally changed it sometime in the ~250 years before our earliest copies of John.

Why was it not said in the text, "...John, the disciple that Jesus loved..."? Why the secrecy and misdirection?

 

[blü 2]

I don't agree... when my children were small, I knew when they were about to do wrong but free-will always has that potential. I was omniscient, so to speak, but it was what it was. I also knew how to fix it. They later thanked me for it.

A good point. The usual image of God is how one's father seemed when one was four.

But if I were indeed omniscient and omnipotent then when I created Satan I'd know exactly what I was doing and I'd intend all the outcomes. And since my intentions and my foresight would be perfect, I'd never need to intervene thereafter. Or it may not be my foresight that's perfect ─ being omnipresent in spacetime as well, I'm a direct spectator of everywhere in the universe at every moment of its history, past present and future.

 

[Kenny]

A good point. The usual image of God is how one's father seemed when one was four.

But if I were indeed omniscient and omnipotent then when I created Satan I'd know exactly what I was doing and I'd intend all the outcomes. And since my intentions and my foresight would be perfect, I'd never need to intervene thereafter. Or it may not be my foresight that's perfect ─ being omnipresent in spacetime as well, I'm a direct spectator of everywhere in the universe at every moment of its history, past present and future.

But then again, as we are trying to figure this out, one thing seems to be glaring at us--we aren't omniscient and here we are trying to say what we would do.

I wonder how many times I knew what I was going to do and when I did it my final statement was "OOPS!" But then again, maybe you are more perfect than me.

As I read the end of the story, it seems like He has the ending--picture perfect. Sounds omniscient to me.

 

[blü 2]

I see you're well acquainted with 'im.

You can't miss him ─ he's in all the churches.

 

[blü 2]

Of course, assuming that no one mistranslated or intentionally changed it sometime in the ~250 years before our earliest copies of John.

Why was it not said in the text, "...John, the disciple that Jesus loved..."? Why the secrecy and misdirection?

One problem is that John is written about 70 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion. 70 years was a lot longer time, and a lot more generations, in those days than now, and who knows what the politics of the day (John is easily the most antisemitic gospel, for example), the tales inherited from past politics and teachers, and the Chinese Whispers effect, have done to the text.

 

[DavidFirth]

You can't miss him ─ he's in all the churches.

He's everywhere, bud. Except where I'm going.