Jesus is fully human as well as God. Did this mean he was like any other healthy adult male? I have trouble squaring the both human and God sometimes. Would Jesus have had any sexual experiences? Would he even have sexually fantasised? I know the God side of him was perfect but did this mean he wasn’t like a typical young adult male?
If he was perfect seems to me he wouldn’t have sexually fantasised. But if he didn’t sexually fantasise how was Jesus fully human?
See, here’s the fallacy of your argument. Having sexual fantasizes is not integral to being a human being. Ergo, just because someone didn’t have one it doesn’t mean they’re not human.
All the other points boil down to this: Jesus was an unmarried man, and Jesus did not sin at all (He was completely sinless). Therefore, because Jesus was unmarried any sexual experience would have been sinful (because sexual intercourse is only correctly ordered within a marriage), but He was sinless therefore it didn’t happen.
I hope this isn’t morally wrong to ask, but in what way would human sexuality have factored into Jesus’ life if at all? I wholeheartedly agree that he would not have committed any sexual sins whatsoever and I would argue that he would have felt no sexual urges of any kind. I’m curious if the Church has any stance on the role (again, if any) of human sexuality in Christ’s life.
Jesus was perfect man as man was before Adam’s fall. He certainly was tempted but having perfect intellect and will he was always in control of his sexuality. Jesus was a man like us in every way but sin.
Because I have such difficulty in this area that it seems a “normal” reaction to women, I wondered the same about our Lord at one point as well. Then my baby sister (21 years younger than I) was born. I love her with all my heart. I have no sexual fantasies involving her, just pure love. In the same way, Jesus who see us all as Brothers and Sister of His Father had no fantasies about the people among whom he lived.
Would Jesus have had any sexual experiences?
Because He loved us so, Jesus would not give a woman *sexual *pleasure, but rather the pleasure of true love. In the Bible (New International Version) 1 John 4:16 states that “God is love.” From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 241 …] the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”…]
So if the Word was/is God, and God is love, then the Word is love. Proclaiming the good news and teaching God’s commandment is what true love is all about.
Now, now, while it is indeed shameful to outright suggest such, if one is asking innocent questions out of mere desire for truth, we should not berate them and say “How shameful of you!” Do you know Yorkshireman’s intent? Maybe he honestly didn’t know the answer and wanted the truth. Are we to lambast him for such? If he were to have blatantly stated, “Christ sinned,” then, yes, that would be shameful. But Yorkshireman sounded unsure. Is it not possible that Yorkshireman wondered if it was possible that Christ did have such sexual interests, but it was not a sin for Him?
Kage, you are wise, but we must not be hasty and jump to such conclusions. Indeed, it is truth that Christ committed absolutely no sins whatsoever, and was not born with original sin. However, He was human, and sexuality is a part of humanity. It is easy to see where this would cause confusion.
Oh, no doubt, kage. I know that to be a definite fact. Before I started getting back into my faith, I often was that person, someone that liked to just stir up trouble. I thought I wasn’t causing harm, that I was just being silly. I have learned to get over such immature and dangerous actions. (Although I do admit I occasionally like to argue just for the sake of argument. )
But, nonetheless, we must rise above these basic assumptions and discern the truth. Assumptions are impulses, and while they can be good (For example, assuming a man running at you with a knife is probably going to hurt you), they can also create discord, confusion, and misunderstandings, which hurt the relationships we have with people.
Just as Adam and Eve were created, He had full control of and was master of his faculties. After the fall we are subject to, not masters, of our drives. Indulging in sexual fantasies is part of our sin nature. We can’t imagine this level of perfection because of our fallen state.
Jesus was the “new Adam” in that HE represented what Adam was in the garden and by HIS example demonstrated what Adam “could have” achieved without sin.
Yes HE was fully man and GOD, but HE was fully in controll of HIS body, as was Adam, but HE chose not to sin.
HE is a model for us, that it is possible to live a life without sin. Our birth with sin is accidental to our creation, as it is inherited, and once forgiven in our baptism, we are capable of living without sin - difficult to accomplish, but capable.
hi, im probably going to get into trouble for this, and this is not my view. but hypothetically speaking. Jesus was called rabbi. correct? in Jewish culture at that time, it would have been strange and noteworthy if he was NOT married. also would the Messiah being married make him any less the Messiah? again just hypothetical. not my views but some hold them. peace
To deny that he was not tempted by sexual matters is to deny Jesus’ full humanity.
Perhaps. Think of Jesus as a “hormonal teenager” for a moment, if you will. I’m sure he looked at teenaged and young attractive women around him with a certain human urge from time to time. The difference is that he did not give into those urges; he did not dwell on his innocent, accidental glance at an attractive woman.
Romantic “longings”, probably not, as I understand the use of the word. Might he have said to himself, “Gee, I would really like to have an involved relationship with (insert Jewish girl name here), but I can’t since I’m the messiah”? Again, probably not. Might he have been tempted to think about the same? There’s nothing to think he might not have been. He was tempted in all ways that we are.
If we say that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine, and we do, then he was tempted in all ways a Jewish man in Palestine around his time on earth was.
If he didn’t have such temptation, then he could never be the model for our behavior that he is and was when he was here on earth!
Word made flesh. Jesus was the Logos made a first century Palestine man. Again, to deny his sexuality in terms of his biology, thoughts and temptation is to deny his humanity.
These answers are just conjecture. we believe he did not sin, but that does not tell us anything for certain about his biological arousal, or the specific feelings he mastered at all times. We can presume he did not sin by entertaining impure thoughts, but we know nothing for certain beyond this. Any theories you read on here claiming further knowledge tell you more about their respective poster’s beliefs about sex than about Jesus.