Did Jesus have concupiscence?

[bmullins]

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

According to this, being free form original sin in no way destroys the nature of man’s flesh towards concupiscence. Does that not indicate that though Jesus had no original sin, his flesh was still just as inclined towards concupiscence? After all Jesus was indeed summoned to spiritual battle, but He overcame it always.

In fact, this portion of the Catechism indicates that He was tempted in EVERY way that other men are.

540 Jesus’ temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him.244 This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning."245 By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert

 

[Verbum_Caro]

According to this, being free form original sin in no way destroys the nature of man’s flesh towards concupiscence. Does that not indicate that though Jesus had no original sin, his flesh was still just as inclined towards concupiscence? After all Jesus was indeed summoned to spiritual battle, but He overcame it always.

Actually, here we ought to discern an important distinction between being “freeD from Original Sin” and being “untainted by Original Sin”, in so far as those who were born into it but freed are left with its effects, for out betterment (subjection to death and concupiscence).

Does that help at all?

VC

 

[bmullins]

The problem is less about that but about the outcome of the logic behind Jesus having somehow less of a human experience than others. If He was fully man, then He would have the same kind of flesh as man. If His flesh was somehow better or He experienced less temptation than we do, then it makes both tradition and the Sacred Scriptures wrong. Whether or not it makes sense logically for Him to possible not have concupiscence, I would have to contend that the fact Traditionally and SS both affirm that He was fully human leads me to believe He had the same sort of desires the rest of us did, but the mastery of His spirit that allowed Him to control each and every one of them.

 

[fhansen]

The problem is less about that but about the outcome of the logic behind Jesus having somehow less of a human experience than others. If He was fully man, then He would have the same kind of flesh as man. If His flesh was somehow better or He experienced less temptation than we do, then it makes both tradition and the Sacred Scriptures wrong. Whether or not it makes sense logically for Him to possible not have concupiscence, I would have to contend that the fact Traditionally and SS both affirm that He was fully human leads me to believe He had the same sort of desires the rest of us did, but the mastery of His spirit that allowed Him to control each and every one of them.

Then would you think “the mastery of His spirit that allowed Him to control each and every one of them”=no concupiscence?