Did Jesus think about sex?

[Church_Militant]

You mistake my meaning.

The point I am making here is that Our Lord was indeed tempted in every way even as we are yet without sin.

Did he entertain temptation? ( i.e. consider giving in to it.) No.

The point being that he has endured everything that we do and understands completely yet never fell.

It is very possible that you and I are saying the same thing differently.
Pax tecum,

 

[Joanp62]

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.

Here’s the way I see it:
We are called to imitate Christ, right? His life is the example for us in how we are to live. So if I see a gorgeous man, I can at least entertain the thought of having sex with him, because, hey, Our Lord did too, right?

But I say, NO WAY!!! Our Lord would have seen a beautiful women and acknowledged her beauty but that would be it. Just by her being in his presense would be the temptation, but Jesus would not have even given any thought to sexual relations with her. Soooooo, if I am to try to imitate Christ, if I saw this attractive man, I may acknowledge that yes, he is very good looking, but looking to Christ as my example, I would not even entertatin any thoughts of sex with regard to this person. Because as I said earlier, once we even begin to entertain these thoughts, we could possibly be on the way to committing the sin.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

You mistake my meaning.

The point I am making here is that Our Lord was indeed tempted in every way even as we are yet without sin.

Did he entertain temptation? ( i.e. consider giving in to it.) No.

The point being that he has endured everything that we do and understands completely yet never fell.

It is very possible that you and I are saying the same thing differently.
Pax tecum,

That very well could be. So you agree that Jesus did not consider giving in to it. That is what I have been saying all along. :banghead: Going back to my OP – by saying that Jesus would have* thought *about sex with someone would have in itself been the beginning of the possiblity of falling into sin, which our Lord , being the Perfect Human, would not have done.

I believe that we need to rethink our views on what is meant by Jesus was tempted, because , yes, it could have dangerous effects on our faith.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[guanophore]

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

This is simply incorrect. First of all, it is unscriptural (see above verses posted). Secondly, there is no imperfection in being tempted! Certainly, in his divine nature, he was not subject to temptation, but in his human nature, he demonstrated perfection in the handling of temptation. I agree with the prior post that perhaps the priests mentioned this because it is so needed. Sexual temptation is one of the biggest struggles, no just for laity, but for the priests! If the priests learned to handle the sexual temptation like Jesus, there would not be the sexual scandals that are going on. More power to them, I say! I also think that equating the natural (God given) sexual desire with lust is missing the whole reason for the sanctity God intented through sexuality. People who think there is something wrong, lustful, imperfect or whatever about sex need to read the Theology of the Body and the Catechism on marriage. God intented the sexual relation to be Holy, and to reflect his relationship with His church. It is not wrong, sinful, or imperfect in itself.

 

[guanophore]

Claude,
You state that Jesus “looked at men and women with a pure love.” I agree completely. That is why I have a problem with your next sentence, that He was capable of lust, even though he did not give in to it. I am aware of the teachings about Jesus being fully human. 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.

God Bless,
Joan P.

He had it because it is human, and He was fully human. He desired to demonstrate, through how he carried his sexuality, the principle of chastity. When you read the catechism on the topic of chastity, it is clear that Jesus lived this teaching for us.

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying that Jesus did not know about sex. He created it. I also know that merely thinking about sex does not necessarily constitute sin, but for us humans, I believe in most cases, thinking about sex usually leads to lust. And that is why I think that those who heard the priest say what he did, may erroneously attribute this lust to our Lord as well.

God Bless,
Joan P.

I have to agree that the state of humanity does seem to suppor that sex usually does lead to lust. But this is not God’s intention for His creation. If the priests cannot start teaching people a different understanding of human sexuality, who can?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree that we need to be careful about not attributing our weakness to Jesus, but I disagree that temptation equals weakness. I also think that we are responsible to attribute Jesus’ strenghts to ourselves! He was fully human, a fully sexual being, and fully able to live the consecrated life with perfection and holiness. there are few things the Latin Church in America needs more right now than this grace!

 

[jack_hawkins]

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.

I totally agree, for what’s it worth. Jesus came down to earth to experience the trials of this world **including **temptation. We know he was tempted - he said “take this cup from me - but not my will but yours” (probably misquoted). Yes, I believe Jesus was tempted. The beauty of a pretty woman or a handsome man is part of the beauty of creation - harbouring thoughts of lust is stepping into sin tho.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I wonder about this. It seems to me that one has to consider a temptation, in order for it to be such. How could Jesus have given the answers he did to the devil when he was in the desert, withouth comprehending the nature of the temptation? On another thread, we are studying the book of James, where it states:

James 1:13-15
14 but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

I think that Jesus did not allow his desire to conceive, so that it could not give birth to sin. This is the example he sets in all areas of holiness, living as sexual beings not being excluded.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I guess maybe I just don’ t understand the difference between the inner,a nd the outer. James teaches us that all temptation finds it’s beginning in desire, which seems pretty internal to me. Additionally, the basic human drives of self preservation, hunger, and sex also seem to come from within. Jesus teaches:

Mark 7:18-23
Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

So I think that there may be external triggers to temptation that occur in the environment, but it is how the person responds, from what is in the heart, that makes a person able to respond either with purity, or sin.

 

[guanophore]

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…

I understand the discomfort,but we better all get over it. If the priest cannot talk about the sanctity of sexuality in church, and we cannot talk about sexual temptation with our 16 year olds, then we are never going to be able to turn around this rampant licentiousness in our society. It is the lack of this teaching and talking that has allowed our youth to stray, and has promoted an environment where our priests have scandalized the church with sexual sin. I say, have out with it!

 

[guanophore]

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.

This interpretation of the teaching is not scriptural, and therefore cannot be accuratel Jesus was tempted. It is true that his natures did not compete, but as has been mentioned previously in this thread, temptation is not a sin. Not all desire is sinful, and yes, Jesus had deesire without concupicsence. The task here for us is to conform our desires to those of God, as Jesus did. We, too, are capable of choosing not to struggle against God’s will, we can choose not to resist, and choose the path of holiness instead.

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.

Well, at least we all agree on this point!

 

[Joanp62]

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.

Jesus being tempted briefly to save his life and not die on the cross, to me is not an occasion of sin or a sin. It is not the same as sexual temptation, which I believe the priests I mentioned in my OP were implying. Also, immediately after asking the Father to take this cup from him, he says, Not my will be done, but yours.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[JPrejean]

This interpretation of the teaching is not scriptural, and therefore cannot be accuratel Jesus was tempted.

My point was that if you interpret “tempted” as some sort of deliberation or internal struggle, then you are misinterpreting Scripture. That’s not what “tempted” means in this context. This follows from the teaching that Jesus had two wills (e.g., Luke 22:42) but while they distinct wills, they are never in conflict or struggle, which would be sin (contrary to Hebr. 4:15"in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."). Sin is not merely the external act of sin, but also setting one’s will in conflict with the divine will, which is what an internal struggle or deliberation would be.

 

[Joanp62]

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.

Thank you J. Prejean

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

I guess maybe I just don’ t understand the difference between the inner,a nd the outer. James teaches us that all temptation finds it’s beginning in desire, which seems pretty internal to me. Additionally, the basic human drives of self preservation, hunger, and sex also seem to come from within. Jesus teaches:

Mark 7:18-23
Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

So I think that there may be external triggers to temptation that occur in the environment, but it is how the person responds, from what is in the heart, that makes a person able to respond either with purity, or sin.

Im sorry but I’m getting a bit frustrated. I don’t understand why some here cannot see that “to be tempted” can have 2 meanings. Go back and read my post #27 where I give 2 scenarios of different forms of “being tempted.” I attribute scenario A to Jesus, not scenario B. Attributed A to Jesus is NOT denying that Jesus was tempted. I’m just saying that we need to know what is meant by that phrase-Being tempted.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

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.

Guanaphone,
I am having trouble picking up your quote re: the above, but you said in response to the above that you agree completely. That is exactly the point I have been trying to make! What am I not saying that is not clear? Please reread my posts- I am not denying that Jesus was tempted, only questioning that he would have considered or struggled with the possibility of giving in. Also read my post #42 where I explain why I think this way. The above quote by JPrejean states that “there was no struggle with the moral choice.” that is what I too mean when I say that Our Lord would not have even had to consider giving in to the temptation.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

My point was that if you interpret “tempted” as some sort of deliberation or internal struggle, then you are misinterpreting Scripture. That’s not what “tempted” means in this context. This follows from the teaching that Jesus had two wills (e.g., Luke 22:42) but while they distinct wills, they are never in conflict or struggle, which would be sin (contrary to Hebr. 4:15"in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."). Sin is not merely the external act of sin, but also setting one’s will in conflict with the divine will, which is what an internal struggle or deliberation would be.

J Prejean has explained this much better than I can apparently. The point I have been trying to make is more eloquenlty stated in the above quote. Thank you.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[chevalier]

Here’s the way I see it:
We are called to imitate Christ, right? His life is the example for us in how we are to live. So if I see a gorgeous man, I can at least entertain the thought of having sex with him, because, hey, Our Lord did too, right?

But I say, NO WAY!!! Our Lord would have seen a beautiful women and acknowledged her beauty but that would be it. Just by her being in his presense would be the temptation, but Jesus would not have even given any thought to sexual relations with her. Soooooo, if I am to try to imitate Christ, if I saw this attractive man, I may acknowledge that yes, he is very good looking, but looking to Christ as my example, I would not even entertatin any thoughts of sex with regard to this person. Because as I said earlier, once we even begin to entertain these thoughts, we could possibly be on the way to committing the sin.

God Bless,
Joan P.

And God bless you as well. Just for clarification, are you explaining your point or disagreeing with something I said?

 

[Joanp62]

And God bless you as well. Just for clarification, are you explaining your point or disagreeing with something I said?

I don’t know, did I quote you? I’ll have to go back and lookGod Bless,Joan P.