Was Jesus Tempted by Lust

[DavidFirth]

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

Yes. Poor you.

 

[DavidFirth]

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.

The verse clearly states He was tempted as all men are tempted. Read it again.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes. Poor you.

A noble attempt at getting the last word. Unfortunately, in the context of the exchange, it makes no sense. Try again.

 

[idav]

The verse clearly states He was tempted as all men are tempted. Read it again.

I know what It says but we can imply any number of things.

 

[Kenny]

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.

SHUCKS! I need to throw out a lot of autobiographies!!

But... "antisemitic"?

I remember, during high school in Venezuela, a literary piece that I had to read. It was a letter from a gentleman, without punctuation, to three sisters who wanted to marry him. His instructions was for each of them to add the punctuations.

All three tailored the letter so that it said that he wanted to marry her in particular. His response was that he punctuated it to say "I'm not marry any one of the three".

The moral of this story is that if someone wants it to be antisemitic, that is what you are going to read. But it will definitely be at the expense of reading the rest of John. IMHO

 

[blü 2]

The moral of this story is that if someone wants it to be antisemitic, that is what you are going to read. But it will definitely be at the expense of reading the rest of John. IMHO

Check out the summary under 'John' >on this W! link<.

It looks at the term 'anti-Judaism' instead of antisemitism, which might be more accurate.

But the larger question is whether the author (or authors ─ 1:1-18 is wholly distinct in style, and Ch 21 is another possibility) of John is in a position to render an historical account of Jesus to any greater extent than the author of Mark, who appears to stitch his biography together from a list of purported messianic prophecies from the Tanakh, and someone's list of Jesus sayings in the other. Paul, easily the earliest, knew all but nothing about an historical Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Check out the summary under 'John' >on this W! link<.

It looks at the term 'anti-Judaism' instead of antisemitism, which might be more accurate.

Yes, perhaps a better word but still, I don't quite think it fits.

Looking at the site, I find it somewhat one sided if not taken out of context completely. For an example: "because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him." Though, taken out of context, it sound like a collective "Jews", it is really addressing only the select ones who were trying to kill him.

So I find it lacking in substance. Noted, of course, John was a Jew as well as the disciples, so he could hardly be speaking of Jews as a whole.

But the larger question is whether the author (or authors ─ 1:1-18 is wholly distinct in style, and Ch 21 is another possibility) of John is in a position to render an historical account of Jesus to any greater extent than the author of Mark, who appears to stitch his biography together from a list of purported messianic prophecies from the Tanakh, and someone's list of Jesus sayings in the other. Paul, easily the earliest, knew all but nothing about an historical Jesus.

I am aware of all the differences that today's experts speak about. Always interesting that those who are viewing scriptures today are the experts but those who lived closest to the times it was written are not the experts.

Obviously, who is critiquing the Gospel of John will determine their thoughts on who wrote it. IMO.

A more complete view of 21, IMV, is the following:

(1) It was written by the same author as chapters 1-20 (with the possible exception of 21:24, see discussion below on that verse) at the same time as chapters 1-20 were written;

(2) It was written by the same author as chapters 1-20 (again with the possible exception of 21:24) but at a later time (perhaps much later, near the end of the author’s life); or

(3) It was written by someone other than the author of chapters 1-20 and added to chapters 1-20 at some later time.

If chapter 21 was indeed a later addition to the Fourth Gospel by a different author, it must have been added very early, because no extant Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter, and there is no serious evidence in the manuscript tradition for later addition.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, perhaps a better word but still, I don't quite think it fits.

At the very least, it has the most them-and-us scenes in which them, the Jews, are losers. From the outside, by the time John was written there are indications that Christianity was moving from being a sect within Judaism to an independent religion, and perhaps beginning to compete with Judaism for followers, as they certainly were by the middle of the 2nd century.

A more complete view of 21, IMV, is the following:

Thanks for that. Interesting.

 

[Kenny]

At the very least, it has the most them-and-us scenes in which them, the Jews, are losers. From the outside, by the time John was written there are indications that Christianity was moving from being a sect within Judaism to an independent religion, and perhaps beginning to compete with Judaism for followers, as they certainly were by the middle of the 2nd century.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

Yes, it does express the most about the contention between the religious leaders and Jesus. But, again, not Jews in general as it also expresses the love for the world, the love for his people and the multitudes that he spoke to by which they also received.

Of course, I am biased in this matter!

But, like I said before, usually we tend to see what we want to see. Jesus said it this way, "He who has ears to hear, let them hear". We all have different ears.

 

[blü 2]

We all have different ears.

Just so.