Did Jesus think about sex?

[guanophore]

I’m sorry guanaphone, but your response doesn’t make sense in regard to what you are quoting from me. I am not talking about imagining anything. I am talking about whether Jesus considered giving in to any of the external temptations before we rejected them. I am currently reading The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin. In the chapter on Temptations and Trials he references St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life **: **
**While we are all familiar with the basic concept of being tempted and giving into it or not, Francis points out that a crucial decision is actually make right after the temptation presents itself, at the stage where we are either initially pleased or displeased by it. He points out that even if we have no intention of giving in to the temptation the decision to take pleasure in thinking about it for a while before rejecting it is *both dangerous and ***damaging in itself…as soon as we become aware of it we need to immediately reject both the pleasure and the temptation.

Now he is not talking about Our Lord being tempted, but if we are strongly cautioned to *not even consider *it before rejecting it, something we would be inclined to do because of concupiscence, Jesus himself would not have even considered it before rejecting it.

God Bless,
Joan P.

Maybe I just don’t understand what you mean when you say “considering it”. Does that mean “should I, or should I not?” If that is what you mean by it, then I think we are in agreement. My point about imagining and whether or not it is “considering” is that I think Jesus could think about/imagine other outcomes, other than the will of His Father, but did not indulge the alternatives. One of these may have been what He told Peter. Jesus knew (could see in His mind’s eye?) that if he asked the Father for angels to fight for Him, they would come. According to your definition of temptation though, this is not a temptation, and that he did not really consider this as an option. As soon as it came to mind He rejected it, and told Peter why it had to be rejected, so that He would not fall into that temptation either.

 

[Joanp62]

Maybe I just don’t understand what you mean when you say “considering it”. Does that mean “should I, or should I not?” If that is what you mean by it, then I think we are in agreement. My point about imagining and whether or not it is “considering” is that I think Jesus could think about/imagine other outcomes, other than the will of His Father, but did not indulge the alternatives. One of these may have been what He told Peter. Jesus knew (could see in His mind’s eye?) that if he asked the Father for angels to fight for Him, they would come. According to your definition of temptation though, this is not a temptation, and that he did not really consider this as an option. As soon as it came to mind He rejected it, and told Peter why it had to be rejected, so that He would not fall into that temptation either.

I don’t understand what you don’t understand about what “considering” means. Way back on page one of these posts I gave a clear example of what I mean by considering giving into temptation. When we are presented with a temptation we either reject it outright, or consider maybe giving in to it which then would lead to us either giving in to the temptation or rejecting it. I posited that Jesus would not even consider giving in (see my reference to Francis de Sales above) .

Anyway, I have my answer. Jesus would NOT have considered any of the temptations that Satan presented Him in the desert. Also, If by “thinking about sex” the priest was even remotely implying that Jesus would have thought about sex with another person, then this priest was incorrect, against the teachings of the Church. If this was not his implication, then he still shouldn’t have brought it up because of the chance that some would misinterpret his intention.

God Bless,

Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

Precisely, Joan. The world and the devil would tempt Our Lord from outside, but there was no concupiscence in Him that could pull Him towards sin within His humanity.

Yes, thank you. That is the point I was making as well. God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[guanophore]

Anyway, I have my answer. Jesus would NOT have considered any of the temptations that Satan presented Him in the desert. Also, If by “thinking about sex” the priest was even remotely implying that Jesus would have thought about sex with another person, then this priest was incorrect, against the teachings of the Church. If this was not his implication, then he still shouldn’t have brought it up because of the chance that some would misinterpret his intention.

God Bless,

Joan P.

I hope you have a chance to go back and tell the priest, so that he understands the implications of what he has said. I is possible that he has NO IDEA what the hearers have gone through on account of his words.

 

[blessedtoo]

Jesus rebuked him and told him “don’t you think I could send for x many legions of angels” I forget the exact. How could he have said that if he had not imagined it? If he could imagine it, and he can’t imagine sin, then it must not have been a temptation?

I don’t think this is an example of temptation at all. By making this claim to Peter, Christ was trying to make the point that all of heaven’s power was at His disposal to use as a defense and Peter’s feeble attempts went against His will. He wasn’t “tempted” to call down the legion of angels. It was an illustration of His power.

 

[Joanp62]

I don’t think this is an example of temptation at all. By making this claim to Peter, Christ was trying to make the point that all of heaven’s power was at His disposal to use as a defense and Peter’s feeble attempts went against His will. He wasn’t “tempted” to call down the legion of angels. It was an illustration of His power.

Another example of Jesus being tempted that someone gave on this thread was of the Agony in the Garden. However, I’m not aware of it ever being called the Temptation in the Garden. I think some are seeing temptation where there was none.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[cheddarsox]

I personally don’t see how a thing can be temptation if we don’t even consider it. Mustn’t one consider a thing in order to reject it? How can I reject what I haven’t even thought of?

If I see a wallet on the ground and look inside and find the owner’s information and call them and return it without even considering keeping the money…then I wasn’t even tempted. The possibility of me having the money never even entered my mind, so there was no temptation. I would have had to consider/thought about the possibility of taking the money, I mean isn’t it the consideration that IS the temptation, me accepting the situation as a possibility for myself?

Otherwise…what is temptation?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Otherwise…what is temptation?

The NT Greek is ***peirasmos ***which means “solicitation to sin.” For instance, if someone suggest that you commit suicide, that would be a “solicitation to sin,” a “temptation” (Gk peirasmos) in the usage of the NT, whether you ever felt the internal urge to commit suicide or not.

In the example you gave, even if you did not consider keeping the money by some internal urge, if someone next to you said, “just keep the money,” you would still rightly said to be tempted (externally) in the NT usage of the word.

 

[guanophore]

I personally don’t see how a thing can be temptation if we don’t even consider it. Mustn’t one consider a thing in order to reject it? How can I reject what I haven’t even thought of?

If I see a wallet on the ground and look inside and find the owner’s information and call them and return it without even considering keeping the money…then I wasn’t even tempted. The possibility of me having the money never even entered my mind, so there was no temptation. I would have had to consider/thought about the possibility of taking the money, I mean isn’t it the consideration that IS the temptation, me accepting the situation as a possibility for myself?

Otherwise…what is temptation?

That is what I thought too, but the teaching of the Church is that it is not this way. Jesus was incapable of “considering” because he could not be effected by an internal tempation.