" ... a man like us in all things but sin ..." -- not any more!

[FCEGM]

But he was fully man. And in his human nature there was the possibility to sin. He could be, and was, tempted but did not sin.

Christ as a healer must have what He is going to share, i.e., must be fully, i.e., perfectly human and Divine or He could not heal us. He gives us the health, as it were, He has. If He did not have this health we, being sick, could not receive healing. So it is not Christ Who is not fully human, it is we, in our fallen state, who are not yet fully human. Only when we by His merits are conformed to Him by divine grace will our humanity be all that it should be. Christ is the Model and Goal for humanity, not vice-versa.

Christ has the fully human nature, i.e., one not wounded by sin. His humanity is therefore graced and in harmony with the Divine. For us to be tending toward sin is for us not to be fully human; therefore we are not the vantage point of healing of our wounded nature but He is. If follows that for Him to heal our infirmity He must bring health to our infirmity. We can’t give what we don’t have, so He must have this health of being fully human, i.e., in harmony with God in order to give it to us by grace. He therefore could not sin, which makes him perfectly human, not less human.

We must realize that it is abnormal for human nature to suffer and die. Our Lord chose to suffer and die; temptation for Him is not exactly the same as for us. The world and the devil would tempt Him from outside, but there was no concupiscence in Him that could pull Him towards sin within His humanity. What He experienced in the Passion is the natural repulsion of the flesh which ought not to die, is not supposed to die, to undergo that separation of body and soul.

Since He was fully human, He would have felt this separation and its preliminaries more than we do. Moreover, He would have felt the abandonment of His Father more than we do (since He was closer to Him than we ever were or could be). It is because He could not sin that when he undergoes this separation of death He experiences “temptation” in a way as we do. But in another way He doesn’t; He was not bent towards sin. He couldn’t even want to sin. He could be tempted by the vissicitudes of a human nature and a human will, but he could never deviate in the slightest from a desire to do good and avoid evil. He would not have experienced inordinate lust or greed, or gluttony, etc… His trials came from outside though they are experienced inside, e.g., suffering and death. While He has consciousness of being the Son, in His sacred humanity He is able to suffer from forces outside Himself (hunger, thirst, obduracy of others, etc.); and as Man He acquired sensible knowledge, had human emotions and thus could feel sorrow and fear; so He brings what He encounters in His Body to His Father because He is in relation to Him and is the Perfect Man at prayer, submitting His human will (Christ Jesus has two wills, Divine and Human) to the Will of the Father.

 

[mosher]

I have a question about this. Obviously Christ did not suffer from original sin as we do, so He did not have a fallen nature as we do. So when the bible mentions He was tempted I would think it was not exactly the same as when we are tempted.

By that I mean we may be drawn to the tempation and in the end hopefully do not give in. He must have just been exposed to the temptation without even even considering giving in?

Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense but it is not completely correct and I cite your post so that I may be able to help with the next question made by steve99.

Why obviously? If he did not have a fallen nature where was the victory?

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:5)

If Jesus did not have a fallen nature he could not be tested in every respect as we are.

Jesus did not have a fallen nature because Mary did not have a fallen nature. This I can discuss at length if necessary but I will refer you to the post I made in post #12 in another discussion.

The source of the difficulty with this is usually an poor understanding of temptation. Usually we try to understand temptation from our experience of temptation instead of understanding the nature of temptation itself. To do this we must understand two terms:

Action = something that we do
Passion = something done to us

These terms act as two sides of the same coin concerning an action. If I strike a person then I acted upon the other person. However from the perspective of the other it is not an action but rather a passion in that he was being acted upon while I was the one acting.

Now, to tempt a person is to act upon them from the outside. So, when Jesus is tempted it is a true temptation and in being acted upon He could have in turn (because of this) could have chosen to sin. In a sense he would will an action based upon the passion (that which was being done to Him). So, this was a true tempting just as the tempting of Adam and Eve. Now, as was mentioned earlier Jesus was impeccable. This means that He, not having the effects of Original Sin, did not suffer from disordered passions which in turn causes a propensity to sin. Rather, Jesus was able in his humanity to perfectly understand the temptation and thus perfectly will the sin as Adam and Eve did in their time of temptation. However, He chose freely, in His humanity, to not sin. The temptation was no more or less than our own temptations but His response was from a position of impeccability.

Now in His Divinity it was not possible to sin as it is impossible for God to offend Himself as He is God. But at the same time His humanity was truly tempted and He truly chose in a human way to not sin and act in accord with His own Divine Will subordinating His human will to the same.

So really it is not about Jesus only feigning temptation as the Gnostics and other heretics believed but that at one and the same time He was tempted but never apart from the Divine Will. So, hopefully that was as clear as mud. But really we have to separate the effect of temptation from the act of temptation in order to properly understand the nature of temptation itself and in turn understand how Jesus was truly tempted.

 

[DustinsDad]

I have a question about this. Obviously Christ did not suffer from original sin as we do, so He did not have a fallen nature as we do. So when the bible mentions He was tempted I would think it was not exactly the same as when we are tempted.

By that I mean we may be drawn to the tempation and in the end hopefully do not give in. He must have just been exposed to the temptation without even even considering giving in?

Does that make sense?

Temptation is not a sin, first of all - only acting on it or dwelling on it purposefully in our minds (relishing the thought so to speak).

That being said, we men have three sources of temptation: The world, the flesh, and the devil. That is, those things around us physically (the world), our own sinful nature (the flesh), and the devil and his minion of evil spirits who are real (the devil).

Since he was completely sinless, Jesus could only be tempted by the world and the devil - and the latter did happen as it is explicitally stated in Scripture after his fasting in the desert. He simply didn’t act on it, nor dwell or relish the though of the temptations the devil was throwing at him.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[fix]

The temptation was no more or less than our own temptations but His response was from a position of impeccability…

So really it is not about Jesus only feigning temptation as the Gnostics and other heretics believed but that at one and the same time He was tempted but never apart from the Divine Will. So, hopefully that was as clear as mud. But really we have to separate the effect of temptation from the act of temptation in order to properly understand the nature of temptation itself and in turn understand how Jesus was truly tempted.

Your last sentence says it all I think. I never questioned whether Christ would have sinned I was wondering whether His experience of being tempting would be very similiar to our experiences. You point out that the external temptation would be the same, but His response with His two natures and impeccability would make that different than our personal experience with temptation?

So if we struggle with temptation meaning we may say to ourself maybe I should consider giving in to this or that we that have been true for Jesus as well?

 

[fix]

Temptation is not a sin, first of all - only acting on it or dwelling on it purposefully in our minds (relishing the thought so to speak).

That being said, we men have three sources of temptation: The world, the flesh, and the devil. That is, those things around us physically (the world), our own sinful nature (the flesh), and the devil and his minion of evil spirits who are real (the devil).

Since he was completely sinless, Jesus could only be tempted by the world and the devil - and the latter did happen as it is explicitally stated in Scripture after his fasting in the desert. He simply didn’t act on it, nor dwell or relish the though of the temptations the devil was throwing at him.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I should haved posed my question more clearly. I accept Jesus never sinned and I accept He was tempted. My question involves where His personal experience in fighting a temptation would be the same as ours?

 

[steveandersen]

I should haved posed my question more clearly. I accept Jesus never sinned and I accept He was tempted. My question involves where His personal experience in fighting a temptation would be the same as ours?

I imagine it would be since he was fully human.

Adam & Eve and Lucifer were not subject to original sin but they all gave into temptation. That is part of the wholeness of the Bible story to see examples of physical and spiritual beings that failed while Christ did not.
Surely if there was no possibility of him succumbing then why is the temptation in the Gospels at all? It seems a bit unfair to extol us to be Christ-like and resist temptation if He wasn’t really tempted in the first place.

I was always taught that Christ could have thrown himself off the cliff or struck back at Pilot’s guards if He chose to. The whole point of that matter was that he had to sacrifice Himself voluntarily.

The implications of what would happen if one part of a Triune God turned against the others is a little beyond my understanding. Perhaps it would just indicate that God changed his mind about saving us.

 

[FCEGM]

I imagine it would be since he was fully human.

Adam & Eve and Lucifer were not subject to original sin but they all gave into temptation. That is part of the wholeness of the Bible story to see examples of physical and spiritual beings that failed while Christ did not.
Surely if there was no possibility of him succumbing then why is the temptation in the Gospels at all? It seems a bit unfair to extol us to be Christ-like and resist temptation if He wasn’t really tempted in the first place.

I was always taught that Christ could have thrown himself off the cliff or struck back at Pilot’s guards if He chose to. The whole point of that matter was that he had to sacrifice Himself voluntarily.

The implications of what would happen if one part of a Triune God turned against the others is a little beyond my understanding. Perhaps it would just indicate that God changed his mind about saving us.

Steve, it really comes down to acceptance of the doctrine taught by the Church. You may wonder about it (belief seeking understanding) and pray about it, but as a Catholic you cannot deny it.

 

[mosher]

Your last sentence says it all I think. I never questioned whether Christ would have sinned I was wondering whether His experience of being tempting would be very similiar to our experiences. You point out that the external temptation would be the same, but His response with His two natures and impeccability would make that different than our personal experience with temptation?

So if we struggle with temptation meaning we may say to ourself maybe I should consider giving in to this or that we that have been true for Jesus as well?

No, not like you and me but more like Adam and Eve as they too were impeccable. He would have been tempted then He would have thought about it taking into account all possible information in a clear way then He would have referred to His conscience and then His will would have acted against the temptation. The process is the same but the tools He had were better.

Think of it this way:

A scientist receives a sample and places it under a microscope and records a result. Another scientist receives the same sample and places it under a more powerful microscope and gets a more accurate result. Jesus has the best microscope.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

more like Adam and Eve as they too were impeccable.

Mosher,
Did you mean to describe Adam and Eve as impeccable? From what I understand “impeccable” means incapable of sin (such as Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Angels, and all those admitted into the Beatific Vision).

Would “immaculate” would be a better discription?

VC

 

[mosher]

Mosher,
Did you mean to describe Adam and Eve as impeccable? From what I understand “impeccable” means incapable of sin (such as Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Angels, and all those admitted into the Beatific Vision).

Would “immaculate” would be a better discription?

VC

Yes you are correct that impeccable is the incorrect term but at the same time immaculate may not be correct either. Rather to be more precise it should be said that He possessed perfection according to His human nature.

 

[steveandersen]

Steve, it really comes down to acceptance of the doctrine taught by the Church. You may wonder about it (belief seeking understanding) and pray about it, but as a Catholic you cannot deny it.

I’m not denying anything I’m just saying that I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus was incapable of sin, that he was tempted, and that he voluntarily chose to accept his death.

“a death he freely accepted” hopefully is not an unknown phrase to Catholics.

If there was no choice involved then what is the priest saying?

 

[mosher]

I’m not denying anything I’m just saying that I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus was incapable of sin, that he was tempted, and that he voluntarily chose to accept his death.

“a death he freely accepted” hopefully is not an unknown phrase to Catholics.

If there was no choice involved then what is the priest saying?

Yes, you were taught correctly. However, there have been many heresies surrounding this aspect of Jesus as they seem on the surface to be a paradox. However, upon closer inspection, while it is a mystery, they are in harmony. I think that in the short answer what you just gave is perfect but the long answer involves including how this inability to sin reconciles with a true human intellect and will.

 

[FCEGM]

I’m not denying anything I’m just saying that I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus was incapable of sin, that he was tempted, and that he voluntarily chose to accept his death.

“a death he freely accepted” hopefully is not an unknown phrase to Catholics.

If there was no choice involved then what is the priest saying?

Steve, it’s good to see that you were taught correctly at your school (not something all students of Catholic schools can say, unfortunately ). This article (towards the bottom under "Effects of the Incarnation) addresses that which presently causes your confusion; I hope you find it helpful - at least, in time. :

newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I clearly remember being taught in my youth that Jesus was just like us in all things except sin. My understanding is that since sin is an offense against God and since Jesus is God, it would not even be possible for Jesus to sin.

Absolutely correct ​

Well, my daughter, who is preparing for her first confession and first communion this year came home yesterday and while reviewing what she had learned in school that day, I was shocked to hear that she was being taught that Jesus DID sin and that Mary was the only sinless person to walk the earth. According to the DRE, Jesus sinned when He threw the peddlers out of the temple.

Comments? Opinions? Suggestions? …

1. • Can anyone offer biblical or church references to show that the DRE is incorrect?
   • Should I take any action with regards to the DRE’s incorrect teaching? Contact her? Contact the pastor? Just let it slide?

1. 
   

   Mary sinless, Jesus sinful ???​

   From the New Testament:
   • Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
   • Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
     That sorts that out.
   If Jesus Christ is a sinner, then He is useless to us - He cannot save from sin, if He Himself is infected with it. He cannot be God made man, for God cannot endure to look on sin (Habakkuk 1.13) - it provokes nothing but the fury of His hatred, because it is wholly hateful. It is better for the entire world to die in extreme agony, than for one sin to be committed (Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua [1863]). That is how vile & obscene & loathsome sin is, for it is enmity with God. Man sins - God does not sin.
   • A sinful Saviour cannot save
   • A sinful Mediator cannot mediate
   • A sinful Expiation for sin cannot expiate the guilt of a single human being, never mind that of the entire human race
   • So there is no Atoning Death of Christ, no Sacrifice of Calvary, no Mass to re-present that perfect & all-sufficient sacrifice, no glorious Resurrection in which the Redeemer triumphs over sin, death & the devil.
   • So death, which is the wages of sin, retains its full power over Christians, who are stuck with their unsaving, useless, non-Saviour.
     A sinless Mary is equally useless - because a mere human being cannot save from sin; to do so, requires Infinite Power, Infinite Goodness, Uncreated & Infinite Holiness. Which Mary has not.
   1. **Don’t **let this slide, whatever you do - this is not a mere detail, it is a deadly error with immense power to do harm. It is extremely destructive, because if Jesus is not sinless, then He is no better than anyone else; & how can anyone possibly adore & love & treat as God such a negligible figure as that ?
   And, take away the only reason Mary has to exist - her Glorious (& Sinless) Redeemer, Christ the Lord - & there is not the slightest reason why anyone should pay a blind bit of notice to her. She becomes totally meaningless, useless, & worthless - & so does the Faith of the Church in Christ. Take away this Uniquely Holy & Sinless Redeemer, & all Christianity evaporates, collapses, implodes. Nothing is left. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why obviously? If he did not have a fallen nature where was the victory?

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:5)

If Jesus did not have a fallen nature he could not be tested in every respect as we are.

Actually, ISTM that because He had no fallen nature, temptation would have been far more painful for Him than for us - not less.​

Sins have the effect of coarsening one; the first sin of a particular kind can take some effort, it can feel forced, unnatural (as it is, indeed), because such a sin is defiance of God’s Will as known to the sinner; do it a few times, & it becomes easier, “second nature”. One’s nature has been “stiffened” into taking a particular position: it starts by being painful; subsides into being cramped; then one gets used to it; even enjoys it. Sin is like acid - something coarse & hard & tough will be more difficult to eat into than something very delicate, sensitive, tender. We are coarsened, hardened, toughened, insensitive - He was not.

And that means we are “protected” against sin, even though we sin - because we are are coarsened, hardened, re-directed into an unnatural position, so, we lose the capacity to see just how perverse & mad & ugly sin is.

Unlike us, Jesus was not hardened by sin - He lacked our defences against it, because He was free of our guilt, & perfectly Holy. So He had to endure sin, without having our “advantages”, our “defences”. To love, is to be vulnerable - & He Loves us: so much, as to die for & because of us. So He was completely vulnerable to temptation. So He would have suffered unspeakably more than we can even begin to imagine. His sufferings did not begin in Holy Week - He is the Man of Sorrows, & He was spared absolutely nothing. ##

 

[Wolseley]

According to the DRE, Jesus sinned when He threw the peddlers out of the temple.

Balderdash.

The charism of hermaneutical infallibility is conferred upon the Sacred Magesterium, not upon a director of religious education.

Once the DRE deviates from the Church says, then it’s merely her own personal opinion----and opinions are like cesspools: everybody’s got one, and they all stink.