Did Jesus think about sex?

[Abira]

hi joan…

sorry this is a long one… I coudn’t decide where to start and end the quote lol…

how would you interpret this? (or anyone lol) It’s from Hebrews 2

9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.” 13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

take care, S

 

[Joanp62]

hi joan…

sorry this is a long one… I coudn’t decide where to start and end the quote lol…

how would you interpret this? (or anyone lol) It’s from Hebrews 2

9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.” 13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

take care, S

Hi Abira,
I think I would say pretty much what I said in post #19. I do not deny that Jesus was like us in every respect, yet withhout sin, so that he could be more merciful and sympathetic to our plight. We must be careful, however, to not attribute our weaknesses to Jesus. He was/is the Perfect Human Being.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Abira]

Hi Abira,
I think I would say pretty much what I said in post #19. I do not deny that Jesus was like us in every respect, yet withhout sin, so that he could be more merciful and sympathetic to our plight. We must be careful, however, to not attribute our weaknesses to Jesus. He was/is the Perfect Human Being.
God Bless,
Joan P.

ok, so you believe that Jesus could be tempted but did not sin? I would agree with that… but I don’t (I know you didn’t say this bit) …but I don’t believe that he could not be tempted… or that because he could be tempted that he was less or marred in any way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesar
Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations

S

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations.

Respectfully disagree – to deny Christ was tempted would, IMHO, deny Him a fully human nature. Bishop Bruskewitz, in remarks on his website reflecting on last Sunday’s Gospel, seems to agree with me:

“Jesus Christ, God Himself but also true Man, Who became like us in all things but sin (Hebrews 2:17), experienced, as we all do, temptations throughout His earthly life, those we hear about after His fast in the desert, those which Saint Peter mistakenly got involved in (Mark 1:35-39), those from an incorrect understanding of the crowds (John 6:15), and those in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:33-36; Luke 22:42).”

If Bishop Bruskewitz says Christ was tempted as true Man, then I’d tend to believe him.

 

[Joanp62]

ok, so you believe that Jesus could be tempted but did not sin? I would agree with that… but I don’t (I know you didn’t say this bit) …but I don’t believe that he could not be tempted… or that because he could be tempted that he was less or marred in any way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesar
Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations

S

As I mentioned in an earlier post, to me, Jesus being tempted
by satan in the desert, which I believe is the only place in the gospels it says Jesus was tempted, means that satan tried to tempt Him, not that Jesus was tempted. For him to be tempted seems to me that he would have even considered satan’s proposals, and I find that hard to believe. I acknowledge that I may be wrong on this.

I appreciate everyones (name removed by moderator)ut. I need to sign off for now as I have to leave. I will check back tomorrow.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[ricmat]

Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations.

Leaving the lust issue aside for a minute…

Was Jesus actually hungry after 40 days fasting in the desert? When Satan said “why don’t you turn these stones into bread”, are you saying that Jesus wasn’t tempted? Because to say so would mean that Jesus wasn’t actually hungry.

 

[Joanp62]

Respectfully disagree – to deny Christ was tempted would, IMHO, deny Him a fully human nature. Bishop Bruskewitz, in remarks on his website reflecting on last Sunday’s Gospel, seems to agree with me:

“Jesus Christ, God Himself but also true Man, Who became like us in all things but sin (Hebrews 2:17), experienced, as we all do, temptations throughout His earthly life, those we hear about after His fast in the desert, those which Saint Peter mistakenly got involved in (Mark 1:35-39), those from an incorrect understanding of the crowds (John 6:15), and those in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:33-36; Luke 22:42).”

If Bishop Bruskewitz says Christ was tempted as true Man, then I’d tend to believe him.

Okay, I know I said I have to leave, but I still have a few minutes. As the OPer let me be more clear.

I do not deny that Jesus experienced external temptations throughout his earthy life. I just don’t agree that he would have even considered giving in to them. For example,

A) I’m on a diet and someone brings me a to die for piece of chocolate cake. They say, “Oh come on, just a little bit won’t hurt.” I say No Thank you and walk away. This person tempted me, an external temptation.

B) Same scenario, but this time I think to myself, Hmmmm, maybe a little bite won’t hurt. But then decide against it and walk away. I was tempted internally, I considered it, then rejected it anyway.

I read Bishop Bruskewitz’ sermon on his site. He also mentions that Jesus was tempted only “externally”.

When Jesus was in the desert and Satan tempted him, Jesus is shown immediately rejecting satan’s offers. It doesn’t imply in the text that Jesus even considered satan’s offers. It would be more like my scenario A above.

And Ricmat, by Jesus rejecting satans offer of bread, does not mean that he wasn’t hungry. It shows that as hungry as he was, he would not even consider doing what satan suggested.

Can anyone see what I’m getting at? All Jesus needed was to have the external temptations to understand what we mere mortals deal with on a daily basis. He did not need to consider giving in to them to be able to relate to what we experience.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Church_Militant]

Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations.

Exactly. Jesus was the Perfect Human Being.

We fall into danger when we attribute our weaknesses to him. We can relate to Jesus because he was exposed to the same things we were and had to deal with the same monotony of daily life with all its pains, sorrows, joys, etc. We know that he knows what we go through and we can look to him as the Supreme Model of the human beings we were meant to be.

God Bless,
Joan P.This is complete error and neither taught by the church or by the Bible.

If you can document it as being dogma then I’ll recant, but it’s not there, so I have no fear of that.

Being a perfect human being in no way precludes the temptations that all of us face as humans and the Word of God is quite clear on this, as I have already shown.

You err in equating temptation with sin…they are not the same at all at all.

I believe that scrupulosity is also considered a sin is it not?

 

[Abira]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, to me, Jesus being tempted
by satan in the desert, which I believe is the only place in the gospels it says Jesus was tempted, means that satan tried to tempt Him, not that Jesus was tempted. For him to be tempted seems to me that he would have even considered satan’s proposals, and I find that hard to believe. I acknowledge that I may be wrong on this.

I appreciate everyones (name removed by moderator)ut. I need to sign off for now as I have to leave. I will check back tomorrow.
God Bless,
Joan P.

for me the fact that jesus could be tempted and resist sin is fundmental to his human nature. I feel that by ignoring this we could be diminishing part of his nature.

If Jesus was not fully man and fully God then how could be empathise with us and provide a role model for us? He would have to suffer the same temptations as us and show us how to live through them, it invalidates his dual nature for me…

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, I know I said I have to leave, but I still have a few minutes. As the OPer let me be more clear.

I do not deny that Jesus experienced external temptations throughout his earthy life. I just don’t agree that he would have even considered giving in to them. For example,

…
Can anyone see what I’m getting at? All Jesus needed was to have the external temptations to understand what we mere mortals deal with on a daily basis. He did not need to consider giving in to them to be able to relate to what we experience.
God Bless,
Joan P.

Last month, in discussing Our Lord’s humanity, a priest giving a sermon said that Jesus thought about sex; and later, also on the same subject, a different priest said that if Jesus had seen a beautiful woman, “his head would have turned and his heart must have pounded faster.”
…
It seems to me that it is dangerous to apply these attributes to our Lord, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

There is no such difference between external temptations and any others since they are all played out on the battlefield of our internal human nature.which Our Lord also had the fullness of.

It is wrong of any of us to try to maintain that He was not tempted in every way as we are yet without sin.

If this makes your image of Jesus seem weak then the problem is not with Our Lord or with the teachings of the church but with your lack of proper understanding of both the Word of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the Lord was not tempted in every way as we are yet without sin then the Word of God becomes a lie and all of the faith crumbles. That has not and will not happen. It is wrong to go beyond what the church actually teaches in this regard as it means that you might scandalize someone by teaching them error.

Therefore, it is vital that you get this resolved properly in your heart and mind. The bishop mentioned above was quite right in his expression of this.

The two statements from the priests that you mentioned above are also in line with church teaching. Though IMO poorly expressed.

The rise in heart rate the one mentioned is nothing more than an autonomic reaction just like the dilation of the eyes when one is inclined to respond favorably to another person. It does not indicate lust which is a moral choice.

God created us all in this way and it was God Himself that decreed upon inspection that it was “very good”.

Temptation does not equal sin, and nowhere in the Word of God or in Church teaching is it stated otherwise.

 

[ricmat]

And Ricmat, by Jesus rejecting satans offer of bread, does not mean that he wasn’t hungry. It shows that as hungry as he was, he would not even consider doing what satan suggested.

Actually, I was asking a rhetorical question. Of course Jesus was hungry (for bread). If he was not hungry, then “temptation” has no meaning in this case.

So was Jesus “tempted sexually” the same way he was “tempted by being hungry for bread?” Yes, he was human in both cases.

But I think we all agree that Jesus did not give in to the temptations.

 

[LilyM]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, to me, Jesus being tempted
by satan in the desert, which I believe is the only place in the gospels it says Jesus was tempted, means that satan tried to tempt Him, not that Jesus was tempted. For him to be tempted seems to me that he would have even considered satan’s proposals, and I find that hard to believe. I acknowledge that I may be wrong on this.

I appreciate everyones (name removed by moderator)ut. I need to sign off for now as I have to leave. I will check back tomorrow.
God Bless,
Joan P.

Really? The desert is the only place he was tempted? Don’t you think his ‘not my will but yours’ in the Garden of Gethsemane was about him being tempted to run away from the horror that awaited him on the cross? Don’t you think his cry of ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me’ was about his being tempted to doubt that he was truly doing the Father’s will?

Again, Joan, BEING TEMPTED IS NOT SINFUL! And what’s the definition of temptation? The definition of temptation is that we entertain the possibility of sinning. NOT THAT WE GIVE IN TO THOSE THOUGHTS though. Jesus being ‘like us in every way BUT SIN’ means just that - he was like us in every particular up to the point of actual sin. That’s human nature.

And you can’t say perfect people (ie without original sin) are never tempted. Adam and Eve were created WITHOUT original sin. The devil tempted them and they did more than entertain thoughts of giving in, they went ahead and ACTUALLY gave in.

 

[Lillith]

Pondering that Jesus was tempted with thinking about sex is about as uncomfortable as pondering my mother and father participating in the act…I just don’t want to go there

I would be embarrassed if I had to sit through that with my sixteen year old…I think it’s unfortunate that your priest choose that route…

However, I am sure that Satan threw every temptation known to man at Jesus…just last week at the reading I caught this…after tempting Jesus in the desert, and failing it is writen that:

Passage Luke 4:13:
13When the devil had finished all this tempting, **he left him until an opportune time.**

 

[JPrejean]

If you can document it as being dogma then I’ll recant, but it’s not there, so I have no fear of that.
…
There is no such difference between external temptations and any others since they are all played out on the battlefield of our internal human nature.which Our Lord also had the fullness of.

I’m concerned that the “battlefield” analogy runs afoul of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s declaration “And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will.” Jesus had no internal struggle with temptation and never willed anything contrary to His human nature, nor even deliberated willing anything contrary to His human nature. Our conscience is a battlefield because we are afflicted with concupiscence, a desire toward sin, but Jesus has no concupiscence.

I’m with Joan P. Sin was a known possibility for Jesus, and the temptation was simply being presented with actual experential knowledge of the circumstances in which He could know that people could fall into sin. There was no struggle with the moral choice.

 

[CSJ]

Originally Posted by Caesar
Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations

S

Three gospels speak of Jesus being led out into the desert to be tempted by the devil. If Jesus couldn’t be tempted, why would the devil bother? Temptation in and of itself is not sin and it is not a mar on perfection. It is simply an opportunity to act selfishly or selflessly. The difference between Jesus and ourselves was that Jesus was not “inclined” as we are to sin because he did not have the stain of original sin. He had no sinful nature. He was as original man was created.

Phillippians 2:6 speaks of Jesus emptying himself and taking on the form of a slave. He was born in human likeness and found in human form. Jesus was fully human (and fully God).

He was the second Adam. The first Adam was also perfect (sinless) prior to the fall. Adam and Eve were tempted and they sinned. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam triumphed by resisting temptation.

Also to reiterate Joan P’s. comment, Jesus did not need to procreate - this is true. Priests also do not need to procreate, but I’m certain that many of them have sexual desires. They simply have to chose to not act on those desires.

If we believe that Jesus was fully human, let us not take anything away from his humanity and likewise, let us not take anything away from his Diety (having the fullness of the Godhead bodily). Jesus, the man simply chose to resist temptation and live in obedience to His Father’s will.

Claude

 

[Lazerlike42]

Christ was perfect, and to have temptations would mar that perfection, thus he had no temptations.

There’s no sin in temptation. Even the book of Hebrews states plainly that Christ was tempted. This is where folks suffering from scrupulosity often have problems - they mistake temptation for sin and suffer tremendously due to their misunderstanding.

 

[blessedtoo]

However, we have sexual desire because we must pro-create. Jesus did not need to procreate, because “through Him all things were made”, and I therefore do not see why he would have even have had any sexual desire.

Joan, you beat me to it. This was my first reaction to this question as well. Temptation is ever present. You may be tempted by that triple chocolate cake whereas I could walk right by without noticing. The temptation itself is there, but it has no impact on me. This is how I believe it was for Christ with regard to the issue of sex. I just can’t see how it would have any draw for Him, especially because He had full knowledge of sexuality and it’s purpose and meaning. I see sex as something that would not exist in heaven because the joy and happiness there would far exceed earthly pleasure.

A) I’m on a diet and someone brings me a to die for piece of chocolate cake. They say, “Oh come on, just a little bit won’t hurt.” I say No Thank you and walk away. This person tempted me, an external temptation.

B) Same scenario, but this time I think to myself, Hmmmm, maybe a little bite won’t hurt. But then decide against it and walk away. I was tempted internally, I considered it, then rejected it anyway

.
I think this is a perfect illustration of the way Christ may have been “tempted”. Again, temptation exists everywhere always and yet we are not all tempted by everything at all times. Christ, being fully human AND fully divine, was in the presence of temptation, yes - but considering the temptations? No.

Jesus had no internal struggle with temptation and never willed anything contrary to His human nature, nor even deliberated willing anything contrary to His human nature. Our conscience is a battlefield because we are afflicted with concupiscence, a desire toward sin, but Jesus has no concupiscence.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Joanp62]

Joan, you beat me to it. This was my first reaction to this question as well. Temptation is ever present. You may be tempted by that triple chocolate cake whereas I could walk right by without noticing. The temptation itself is there, but it has no impact on me. This is how I believe it was for Christ with regard to the issue of sex. I just can’t see how it would have any draw for Him, especially because He had full knowledge of sexuality and it’s purpose and meaning. I see sex as something that would not exist in heaven because the joy and happiness there would far exceed earthly pleasure.
.
I think this is a perfect illustration of the way Christ may have been “tempted”. Again, temptation exists everywhere always and yet we are not all tempted by everything at all times. Christ, being fully human AND fully divine, was in the presence of temptation, yes - but considering the temptations? No.

Perfectly stated.

Dear Blessed Too,

Thank you!. Finally someone who sees what I’ve been trying to say. I have acknowledged in earlier posts that I could be wrong on this view, but I think it is a perfectly valid one. Based on the responses of some of the posters they either do not get what I am saying or they think it makes sense to think that Jesus would have at least considered giving in to the temptations that we also face.

As I stated earlier, yesterday, simply by being exposed to the same temptations we are in life, would be enough reason to believe that Jesus could empathize with us, without him ever really needed to even *consider *giving in to the temptation.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[chevalier]

Being tempted with lust seems to be contained within being tempted in everything as we are. I wouldn’t like to go into human nature vs divine nature because Jesus is the Lord, alive person, the giver of life, and not an object to be dissected. This is not something I would ask Jesus about. Please let’s not make Jesus feel like a frog being cut up.

What’s sure is that Jesus never gave in to any temptation of any sort, nor did He ever entertain a single immoral thought.

 

[Joanp62]

Temptation does not equal sin, and nowhere in the Word of God or in Church teaching is it stated otherwise.

Church Militant,
I know that temptation does not equal sin. However, the moment we even begin to consider giving in to it, leads to a possible occasion of sin and then possibly to the sin itself. I believe that Jesus being fully human, though perfect, and fully Divine, he would not have even considered it.

I have checked the Catechism, and all I can find on the matter is that yes, of course, Jesus was tempted. They do not specify whether or not he actually considered, even for a moment, to give in to it. Could you please site a source from Church Teaching that is explicit that Jesus really did consider to give in to these temptations or not.

I also agree with Bishop Bruskewitz. However, he mentioned external temptation, you say there is no difference. I say there may be, therefore, we are both taking what the Bishop said in two different ways. He also did not specify whether our Lord considered giving in to the temptations he was exposed to and I don’t think it is wrong or sinful of me to want to get this matter clarified.

God Bless,
Joan P.