Was Jesus Tempted by Lust

[idav]

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

At least the major stuff and sex is one of those major issues that religions harp on and on about.

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?

Buddha refused to produce miracles but it's thought he had some sort of omniscience.

Do you think he was exempt on being hit on?

No but that would have been one heck of a story, Jesus not being tempted by some beautiful woman, he did mention something about not even looking at a person with lust in their hearts.

 

[blü 2]

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

There's no objectively correct moral value (which is why each conscience is unique).

We know, however (by surveys of cultures around the world) that some moral impulses are found in all cultures hence are genetic: child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, fairness and reciprocity, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and a sense of self-worth or virtue through self-denial.

Other values are cultural or personal. For example, whether a marriage involves a brideprice, a dowry or neither is cultural.

 

[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.

When was the last time you sat back on the couch at a dinner party cuddling a friend of the same sex to your bosom?

And that spat scene in John 21 is even more strikingly odd.

And it now occurs to me ask whether this ties in with Jesus' nasty attitude to his family and especially his mother, which I mentioned above.

(Mind you, on the positive side, these descriptions of Jesus being human enough to snarl repeatedly at his mother, and cuddle his special friend, may be the strongest evidence for an historical Jesus in the bible.)

 

[idav]

When was the last time you sat back on the couch at a dinner party cuddling a friend of the same sex to your bosom?

And that spat scene in John 21 is even more strikingly odd.

And it now occurs to me ask whether this ties in with Jesus' nasty attitude to his family and especially his mother, which I mentioned above.

(Mind you, on the positive side, these descriptions of Jesus being human enough to snarl repeatedly at his mother, and cuddle his special friend, may be the strongest evidence for an historical Jesus in the bible.)

Oh I agree, I'm not French or anything lol. The wife might find that sort of behavior odd to say the least.

I hear you, Jesus is sounding more and more human the more you dig into scripture.

 

[Spideymon77]

I like to think about it this way.

Oh hey, my Dad gave me all of these God like powers! I'm gonna **** soooooooo many chicks!

I mean, who wouldn't take advantage of these powers? I know I would!

 

[blü 2]

I hear you, Jesus is sounding more and more human the more you dig into scripture.

Not quite. Snapping at his ma and family, having special friends and, maybe but not certainly, the constant links between Jesus and wine, are the only examples of a human Jesus that I've noticed that so far I can't map onto the Tanakh, hence take as part of a Jesus story constructed from purported messianic prophecies.

 

[Patti]

I may perhaps believe that Jesus would have regarded the temptation (lust) as sinful. Matt. 5:28 "He who has committed adultery in his heart has committed adultery." Then there is John 8:8-9 "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus did not cast a stone. 1 Cor. 7:5 "defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, lending yourselves to prayer and fasting." 1 Cor. 7:5 perhaps encouraging couples to communicate better and advising them that the communication should come before separation for any purpose. Homosexuals would need to know that their God understands them. That's ok. The only reference I know of I have not looked up but I can if you want me to: "Do not be like those homosexuals, who, insecure in the faith, are tossed this way and that like a ship without anchor."

 

[idav]

Not quite. Snapping at his ma and family, having special friends and, maybe but not certainly, the constant links between Jesus and wine, are the only examples of a human Jesus that I've noticed that so far I can't map onto the Tanakh, hence take as part of a Jesus story constructed from purported messianic prophecies.

Oh, I see what you mean.

 

[DavidFirth]

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.


Yes, Jesus was tempted in every way just as we are. More so even, because the devil offered Him everything under the sun.

 

[idav]

I may perhaps believe that Jesus would have regarded the temptation (lust) as sinful. Matt. 5:28 "He who has committed adultery in his heart has committed adultery." Then there is John 8:8-9 "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus did not cast a stone. 1 Cor. 7:5 "defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, lending yourselves to prayer and fasting." 1 Cor. 7:5 perhaps encouraging couples to communicate better and advising them that the communication should come before separation for any purpose. Homosexuals would need to know that their God understands them. That's ok. The only reference I know of I have not looked up but I can if you want me to: "Do not be like those homosexuals, who, insecure in the faith, are tossed this way and that like a ship without anchor."

Let's look at lust in a different way for a second. Suppose lust was for a piece of chocolate cake. Are you saying it would be a sin to even think the cake might be tasty? Thinking the cake might be tasty would be the temptation, not eating it would be not caving into sin. If the sin isn't even tempting to Jesus then what did he really resist?

 

[Riders]

The scriptures with his disciple who layed his head on his chest strikes me as being sexual.

 

[DavidFirth]

Everything strikes you people who think in the flesh as sexual. You'll die in your flesh.

Live in the Spirit and you will never die.

 

[Skwim]

Exactly, agape (in its various forms, as Greek is an inflected language) means to love someone in the highest, most selfless way possible.

And more. As shown by Strong's explanation of g25 "agapo," its use in the scriptures I quoted, plus John 21:20, would denote "to be fond of, to love dearly." See post 24

And the reason these definitions are more appropriate rather than "love someone in the highest, most selfless way possible" is the context in which they occur.
The disciples were Jesus' closest followers and became the primary teachers of his message, and if anyone would be deserving of his "highest, most selfless love" it would be these twelve: each was the object of Jesus' "highest, most selfless love." HOWEVER, there was one disciple who Jesus singled out for his "love." A disciple Jesus "loved very much." And because Jesus' "highest, most selfless love," was bestowed on the other eleven, this love Jesus had for one disciple in particular must have been different. But what kind of different love would this be? A love so different it was deemed necessary to make note of it in four different verses? This was no ordinary agape love: goodwill, benevolence, and selfless love. It goes far beyond that. As noted in John 21:7 and 22 it was a love best described as "very much."

So, using Strong's explanation of "agapo" its usage indicates Jesus was very fond of the disciple, Even loving him dearly.

Of course, being a homosexual doesn't mean Jesus necessarily had homosexual relations with this disciple, but the verses below do indicate a singular preferential love for him. And because Jesus is never mentioned having any such love for a woman, it's a darn good indicator this was same-sex love; homosexual love.



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?
_______________________________________

John 13:23
23One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him;

John 19:26
26When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.”

John 21:7
7The follower Jesus loved very much said to Peter, “That man is the Lord!” When Peter heard him say it was the Lord, he wrapped his coat around himself (for he was naked). Then he jumped into the water.

John 21:20
20 Peter turned and saw the follower Jesus loved very much walking behind them. (This was the follower who had leaned against Jesus at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it that will hand you over?”)

__________________________________________

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 don't believe the writers were under any obligation to use a word that necessarily described sexual affection. Just as no one is obligated to described any two people in love as having sexual affection for each other even though they do. One can simply say they were in love with each other. They "loved each other much."

.

.

 

[Patti]

The more I think about it, the beloved desciple reclining on the bosom of Christ seems like a very spousal level of trust. However, the image of Jesus snarling at his mother--snarling Jesus is a disturbing image. Tempted to gluttony by a piece of chocolate cake--I have so much to think about!

 

[Glaurung]

And more. As shown by Strong's explanation of g25 "agapo," its use in the scriptures I quoted, plus John 21:20, would denote "to be fond of, to love dearly." See post 24

It's not the definition of "love dearly" that's the issue, it's your asinine insinuation that this love is homoerotic. Connotations of sexual affection contradict the meaning of agape. You can't just hamfist your own unique connotations against the accepted meaning of a word and pretend that you're credible. Also note that the Greeks had a specific word for sexual affection, a point you keep ignoring.

Do you honestly think that if the text could at all reasonably be taken to insinuate what you are claiming that it would have been accepted as scripture by Church leaders who actually spoke the Greek in question? It's so ludicrous that I honestly think you don't even believe your own point here.

If you are confident agape can have a connotation of sexual affection, why don't you quote some Greek literature where it has such a meaning? Your own personal insinuations don't cut it.

I don't believe the writers were under any obligation to use a word that necessarily described sexual affection. Just as no one is obligated to described any two people in love as having sexual affection for each other even though they do. One can simply say they were in love with each other. They "loved each other much."

Translation: I'm going to insinuate and you'll just have to take my word for it. The problem with this argument is that unlike the English phrase of "love very much" agape, or agapao for the verb is defined in contrast to love with sexual affection. Agape is platonic by definition.

So prove otherwise or your augment doesn't work.

 

[Patti]

I think I agree that the disciple laying his head on Christ's bosom indicates a very spousal level of trust. And I'ld just like to comment that the image of snarling Jesus is disturbing. I can see myself tempted to gluttony by a piece of chocolate cake. Lastly, are there verses in the New Testement from Roman's to Revelation that also support this scriptural support of the LBGTQ community?

 

[Patti]

so soory to post twice--having some trouble with the notebook

 

[idav]

Everything strikes you people who think in the flesh as sexual. You'll die in your flesh.

Live in the Spirit and you will never die.

Not everything is sexual, there are handshakes, hugs, punches in the arm, none of which should make Jesus seem like he was lusting. However laying with a guy on the chest makes most people do a double take, it should if your honest. The verse where a disciple was naked also sounds suspicious.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not everything is sexual, there are handshakes, hugs, punches in the arm, none of which should make Jesus seem like he was lusting. However laying with a guy on the chest makes most people do a double take, it should if your honest. The verse where a disciple was naked also sounds suspicious.

I wouldn't be quick to think that John putting his head on Jesus' chest is homoerotic since that's a different time and culture. In other cultures, it was more acceptable for males to show more physical affection for each other without being homoerotic. That's still true to an extent in the Middle East. Our culture is much more uppity and restrictive about those things (which I hate).

But the naked guy is interesting and I'd like to hear an explanation for that. He's never spoken of.

 

[Patti]

idav: here is an example of the destructive effects of lust which is resisted as a temptation. I'm sure you are familiar with this example. In 2000 it came out that a number of protestant clergy were addicted to porn. It was advised to some of them to seek treatment or counseling for this unhealthy habit. While many of these clergy never fornicated or committed adultery, their fascination with lust was unusual and preoccupied their mind so that an undue portion of their time was spent on their lust and not spent serving God or their flock. Most people agreed that such a powerful struggle resisting temptation required additional help, such as therapy, to redirect their path back to God and greater mental health. So, yeah, sometimes just thinking it can be a sin. I suppose it's a matter of degree. I suppose it matters whether the temptation becomes problematic. If every time you see a chocolate cake you long to eat it, and you think about the cake when it's not around, or you become obsessed, with the thought of the cake, or angry that you don't have one--maybe it's a sinful state of separation from God, a lack of trust in God's power.