I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m just curious. Since Jesus was human, and he felt all feelings that we do, does that mean he also had sexual urges? Did he ever have a relationship? I am just curious about this, since he did feel all the feelings that humans did. Like, he must’ve gone through puberty, right? Also, sorry to get off topic, but also, why do people get mad when Mary is depicted as being in pain when she gives birth to Jesus? I mean, she did. She was a human girl. Birth hurts.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Also consider the fact lusting with your eyes is sinning. So I'd say no, at least in that regard. I would however say, he likely had biological urges that he was tempted with. You have to consider the fact they were living in a different culture than we are. I mean, due to it being hidden in Victorian times, the ankle was viewed as attractive/scandalous to be seen in public. Different times, different views and cultural standards.
Edit: Grammar
Just for clarity for OP: lust is not the same thing as attraction. Attraction is innate and automatic. Lust is a matter of inordinate and deliberate focus. He would have been able to look at another person and feel attraction, and feel the temptation to lust, without lusting.
Conflating routine sexual desire with sinful temptation is itself a big problem, not that this is your intent.
Biology is not a sin.
But of course yes, Jesus as a human would have been tempted with sins that naturally tempt us as we seek to put ourselves above others to satisfy our own desires for food, shelter, possessions, prestige, and sex.
It's strange that they would know what Jesus did in his private time, I dont know how another man can say a man does not sin. The author of Hebrews is anonymous, but I dont see how that person could know something only God would know?
Well if you believe the author was being divinely guided when they wrote that then it’s easier to believe. Obviously from a historical standpoint though we can’t make that assumption
That is true!
Scripture says Jesus did not sin. God has revealed all we need to know about His Son; anything else would be a distraction.
Ikr!
I mean the Father knows and we know the Father doesn't lie and tells Jesus what exactly to say and do
It's strange that you would assert that Jesus whom was God could sin. Do you even have faith? Doesn't seem that way..
What is sin to you? Define it.
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
This doesn't really answer the question. Romantic love and sex are not sin.
Seems kind of like the crux of the whole issue doesn't it? Like what did people of Bible times think about sex and relationships and how might it be different from our views of the 21st century? If that's not a book title somewhere out there maybe it should be 💖
It is if your not married.
Unmarried sex is absolutely the sin of fornication and if you are going to try to assert Jesus had sex you don't know him at all...
But to be human you must have ignorance, humans can’t know most things, that’s one of the most significant parts of being human, yet if Jesus was god he had to know all things, or atleast know with absolute certainty he knew all things with such perfection that he could know what he chose to not know. If Jesus was truly ignorant then he could have been mistaken about anything or everything he ever said or thought, just like every human.
Jesus was never ignorant, that is impossible. But he freely chose to embody and assume the inherent limitations of humanity. As humans are bound by time, their working towards eternity happens across time. This meant Jesus took part in the temporal process of humanity and did truly grow, learn, and develop in knowledge.
He purposely humbled Himself and made Himself vulnerable when assuming human nature. This allowed Him to fully embody our condition, our sins in the Garden, and our sufferings on the Cross, to have the deepest possible connection with humanity. But also, to have a dependence on the Father to reveal His perfect Will for Him. This created a true human free will that required faith, trust, surrender, and fortitude. This enabled Jesus to freely choose to go up on the Cross.
Jesus, as a divine person, possesses full divine omniscience. Yet, He did not continually make it present and exercise it every moment in his human nature. In his human nature, He possessed the perfectly proportioned/necessary knowledge of everything required for His mission and our salvation, at each moment. The same way God equips us with proportioned grace for every moment of our lives. And, Jesus enabled continual revelation of the perfect will of the Father, by a constant working communion and prayer to the Father.
This is not ignorance - it is the humility of the Incarnation. Christ’s human knowledge was always sufficient, always flawless, always oriented to the Father’s plan due to Christ’s exercising of His human will in alignment with the Will of the Father, but it all unfolded within the limits of real human experience.
If god/jesus gave himself the perfect level of everything necessary to know exactly what he needed at every moment and turn, then either that not anything like human experience. Or if you suggest god gives all humans exactly what is needed at all times, then god is responsible for everything that goes wrong, as he didn’t give those people the nesscary power/knowledge/state of heart ect… that he gave to Jesus and others
God does provide for us the grace we need but we still have free will to choose right or wrong.
Except that god chooses who to allow more or less free will as not, as he demonstrated in the Bible when he hardens and softens hearts as he sees fit.
Additionally that’s a nice sounding excuse, but it doesn’t seem to play out in the real world, when, where and when you are born plays the most significant role in whether or not you choose the Christian god, and which of the 30,000 versions of that god. If you are born to poor people in the Middle East there is less than a .01% chance you will ever even get a chance to be Christian, let alone choose before you’ve already chosen Islam.
So the fact that circumstances seem overwhelming and exponential far more influencial than any possible sort of free will we have zero evidence even exists, makes your argument pretty weak.
And even worse is that god frequently gives many people absolute perfect certain knowledge of his existence, and his will, and love, and not others, While not harming this free will stuff.
So free will isn’t an excuse, god often overrides it , and give certainty to many people of his will and existence, while not harming this free will you believe is the excuse
None of what you mentioned affects free will though
All the prophets, and many of the patriarchs supposedly all had direct knowledge of god, they communicated and witnessed the word and works of god first hand. Additionally many thousands of people supposedly interacted with god/jesus, the apostles for certain, according to scripture new Jesus was god, and lived with him for years, Peter and Paul atleast according to scripture had direct experience and knowledge of Jesus/god after his reserection, and Paul had direct knowledge and experience of Jesus/god, after his ascension.
As far as god hardening and softening hearts against free will, Canaanites (Joshua 11:20), Israel (Romans 9:18, John 12:40), Pharaoh (Exodus), David (Psalm 51:10), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36:26), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:33
And before you assert without evidence these are just people Hardening or softening their hearts , the Bible explicitly makes that distinction , with the Pharaoh (Exodus), and Israelites (Psalm 95:8, Hebrews 3:8) hareden their own hearts in contrast to when god does it for them. And the softening of hearts seems to be almost only done explicitly by god.
Scripture please?
You don’t know the basic Bible stories and scripture? All the prophets, and many of the patriarchs supposedly all had direct knowledge of god, they communicated and witnessed the word and works of god first hand. Additionally many thousands of people supposedly interacted with god/jesus, the apostles for certain, according to scripture new Jesus was god, and lived with him for years, Peter and Paul atleast according to scripture had direct experience and knowledge of Jesus/god after his reserection, and Paul had direct knowledge and experience of Jesus/god, after his ascension.
As far as god hardening and softening hearts against free will, Canaanites (Joshua 11:20), Israel (Romans 9:18, John 12:40), Pharaoh (Exodus), David (Psalm 51:10), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36:26), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:33
And before you assert without evidence these are just people Hardening or softening their hearts , the Bible explicitly makes that distinction , with the Pharaoh (Exodus), and Israelites (Psalm 95:8, Hebrews 3:8) hareden their own hearts in contrast to when god does it for them. And the softening of hearts seems to be almost only done explicitly by god.
I don't believe in free will. I believe either we are slaves to sin or slaves of righteousness according to the Scriptures. Those who are slaves of sin cannot do righteousness and cannot Love. We cannot choose good by our own intentions. Only God can open our hearts when they are hardened. And when our hearts are hardened we already cannot do good because what comes from the heart is anything that defiles a man. So I do have Faith in Jesus because it was given to me from Heaven. Let me know if we are on the same page or not
John 8:34-36 LSB [34] Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
[35] And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
[36] So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Romans 6:15-23 LSB [15] What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
[16] Do you not know that when you go on presenting yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
[17] But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you obeyed from the heart that pattern of teaching to which you were given over,
[18] and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
[19] I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, leading to further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, leading to sanctification.
[20] For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
[21] Therefore what benefit were you then having from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
[22] But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your benefit, leading to sanctification, and the end, eternal life.
[23] For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Proverbs 4:20-27 LSB
[20] ¶My son, pay attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.
[21] Do not let them deviate from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart.
[22] For they are life to those who find them And healing to all his flesh.
[23] Guard your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
[24] Put away from you a perverse mouth And put devious lips far from you.
[25] Let your eyes look directly ahead And even let your eyelids be fixed straight in front of you.
[26] Watch the track of your feet And all your ways will be established.
[27] Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil.
And we cannot love the Scriptures unless God gives us the desire to:
John 3:27 LSB [27] John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.
The same can be said about those who recieve repentance, Grace, etc.
Also could you capitolize "god" when you are referring to God?
Scripture?
Was it possible for Jesus to ever be wrong, make a mistake, could Jesus have sinned? If not then he had nothing like a human experience, unless you believe Jesus and our lives are equally predetermined, and everything just happens as it must.
Thank you Theokratos.
The source of the temptation is important too. Any internal temptations, would be non-sinful ones, like biological ones for example. But sinful temptations, that would usually originate from a sinful nature and mind, came externally. As seen when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. By both internal and external temptation, this is how he was tempted in every way like us but without sin.
Most theologians would say yes he had those urges but chose not to act on them - being fully human means dealing with all the same stuff we do but without sin. The whole "tempted in every way yet without sin" thing from Hebrews
Ohhh I see! I wonder if his relatives got mad at him for not marrying, since back in those days, it was important for their children to marry!
Probably. They certainly thought he was crazy when he started his ministry.
Yea probably. My relatives always ask me if I have a boyfriend, they probably asked him that too
I have a feeling they didn't ask him if he had a boyfriend. 😂. 😉😉
maybe his apparent lack of girlfriend is why they asked him if he had a boyfriend.
Good 👉 point.
Maybe they were progressives?
Hahah!!
At least his mom and cousin John (the baptist) knew to expect something out of the ordinary for him.
Yes, I think so.
Luckily for him that carpentry gig didn't work out
Lucky for him, good for us!
As Jim Gaffigan said " Imagine what people were saying back then? "It's a good thing that Messiah thing worked out- He built a shed for my cousin, what a piece of crap"
lol
His family thought he was crazy. Mark 3:20-21
There are some people that believe He was married.
His dad was probably more upset that he didn't become a carpenter. He spent a lot of years training him. 😅
Omg yes lmaoo
It was pretty standard for rabbis to delay marrying
Technically he could’ve had sex within the context of marriage and that wouldn’t have been sinful.
Ok many people are saying the sin part, technically if u were married it wouldn’t be a sin to have relationships right?
Correct, sexual relations within the covenant of marriage is not sinful. However, Jesus never married, therefore He never engaged in sexual relations.
Yes, he had sexual urges, no, as far as is known, he had no relationships.
I suppose the proposition that Jesus experienced sexual temptation, yet did not sin, has been brought to bear as a helpful example on the question of how the sin of lust and "adultery in the heart" are to be understood (a question that's tormented many young people).
What do you mean by the adultery in the heart?
I am assuming they are referring to the verse in Matthew 5:
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
In Jesus' time, the people of Judea had a religion that was very concerned about outward acts of righteousness. Jesus revealed that God's true desire is for our inward transformation. It is not enough to keep from committing adultery physically, you have to abstain from adultery inwardly, in your thoughts, emotion, and mind, in order to be righteous. But we are too weak to obtain this kind of righteousness on our own, it is only through faith and cooperation with God that these transformations will happen.
Many young Christians are given the impression that even to experience sexual attraction is to commit the sin of lust. The accounts of Jesus's life and attributes may refute this.
I've always thought sexual attraction, totally fine and normal. Leering at someone though or specifically imagining yourself with them is where it crosses the line
Ohhhh I see! Thank you so much! I’m 20, and I know people who have sex like a month into their relationship. I have had it before, (which was only one time and I’m ashamed of), but i waited until i thought i truly trusted him and felt like he would be my soulmate. Unfortunately, he broke up with me 3 days later.
Best wishes to you. FWIW, I realize I should have included the source for the phrase you asked about, which is Jesus's words in Matthew 5:27-28. This passage has been translated as “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.“
This sounds harsh, but there are serious questions of translation/interpretation, in particular the Koine Greek words epithumeó and gyne, and it may refer to coveting (planning to seize or seduce) another man's wife. See discussion here
Matthew 5:27–28 - Wikipedia
True. Unfortunately, Christendom in general has beat into everyone’s head over the years that anything to do with romantic thoughts and desires, or hormones, is somehow “evil” and “ sinful”
Yes!
I know what you mean. But, to address the OP directly, He did have relationships, many of them, but they were based on agape not eros.
What is agape?
Agape is the highest form of love, sacrificial and compassionate. The sort of love God has for us and, as Christians, we have for others.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
It contrasts with eros - sexual attraction and philia - companionship, as with a friend. There's also a word for parent/child relationship, but I can't remember what that is.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Ohhh I see! Thank you so much
Sure thing.
I also heard that him and Mary Magdalene were in a relationship
No doubt you’ve heard people say that, as have I, but it’s not in the Bible.
Yes! I mean, if he did tho, wouldn’t that be awkward? His mom and girlfriend have the same name lol! But I’ve also heard people speculate that Jesus was gay, which i actually wouldn’t be surprised about!
[deleted]
I’ve also heard that Mary and Joseph actually had children of their own after Jesus!
I think you need to stop listening to what people say and actually read the Bible.
The Bible that talks about Jesus' brothers?
This would be true.
They did... Jude was one, he wrote one of the new test books... James was another.... he wrote another... both half-brothers of Jesus... they had the same mother... why is that a problem? Mary and Joseph were married, and the scriptures say that Joseph took her, but didn't "KNOW" her until after Jesus was born... she was virgin while Jesus was in her body...
Yes! No it’s not a problem!
Yes, the Bible refers to his brothers and sisters. Of course God blessed them with children after the firstborn. James is said to be one of his brothers.
In those times, most women were named Mary or Salome, so it's not that weird. Jesus was single because his mission was more important than having a relationship, not because he was gay.
My dad and husband have the same name 😂 just putting that out there hahaha.
Oh yea! My ex boyfriend and my uncle have the same name lol
This is fake, he never had a relationship
I always imagined Jesus as being asexual/aromantic, even before I knew those words.
Omg yes! Why is that true!
Yes he did but he never acted on them. Anyone telling you Jesus was not tempted in EVERY way we are as a a human being is lying.
Ohhh I see thank you so much! That actually must’ve been really hard, since back then, you usually got married in your teens
It certainly was challenging but he really loved God so he simply couldn’t do it.
That’s true! I wonder if his family ever bugged him about it. I’m 20 years old, and my family always asks me if I have a boyfriend or not.
lol. That’s a very interesting question. I would suppose they did. They didn’t understand who Jesus was immediately for sure. Im pretty sure Jesus shut it down though. He told his mother at 12 years old that he’d be about his Fathers business
True! I bet Mary was like, “hey that’s my son. He can do whatever he wants with his life”
Jesus came to save sinners, Even satan tried to tempt him saying he could have everything he has , Jesus rebuked him. Jesus is coming back and all the evil and satan and non believers will perish, so it’s time people repent and get right with God. A thousand years is a day to God and a day a thousand, Gods timing isn’t like ours. Don’t rely on your own understanding but Gods
Satan has no power except for the power God allows him to have.
What? Also, how do you know that Jesus is coming back? They said that we’ll never know the time or the hour
He said he would be back in the apostles lifetime, so not sure at this point
No, he said that some standing there would not taste death til they see the kingdom of God/ the son of man coming in his kingdom, then the transfiguration happens right after in Matthew, mark, and Luke where some see the son of man in his glory so thats what he was talking about
So that was his second coming?
We don’t know the time or hour but it does say He is coming back and everyone will see , and every knee will bow. Repent and be saved from the pits of hell
You know I believe in him right?
I have to wonder why people even think about this. But Jesus was fully human and fully God. So yes he experience human temptations but no he did not sin.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
He once said something like, "Wretched is the man when the lion eats the man and becomes the lion"...
So yes, I believe that's exactly what he was referring to.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
He is quoting a heretical gnostic text, ignore him.
Jesus was a gnostic. He said so by this statement. "I will reveal things in my parables that have been hidden since the foundations of the world"
Gnostics almost always say 2 things at once. The entire New Testament is Gnostic. At least, I'm pretty sure it is. For those who have ears to hear....
He was only gnostic in that He knew God.
I believe the Gnostics knew how Christianity was built, from the outside like Scaffolding. They would be among Christians, but they weren't Christians exactly. They were posers keeping it together until it took root. Kind of like tomato plant stakes. That's how I see them.
So, their activities would be seen as heretical, and they would be called witches certainly for they wouldn't have any rules at all to speak of.
I'm not talking about right or wrong, but about sin.
The worst people in the world are gnostics except for blacks and whites.
Think about the Cathars... Where do we get the name catheter from?
Gnostics have left a trail of freaky sexual behavior behind them all over the place rofl...
hahahahhaa
Image how they laughed and laughed when a patent clerk came up with an idea that mass could bend light...
Well I'm no patent clerk, and my idea isn't original. You can research it. Or you can ignore it. The information is out there. However, you have to look outside the Bible to find it sometimes. Those that seek find right?
Sure buddy, go to a Catholic Church and find some truth and take that tin hat out of your head.
Ah, I see says the blind man. You have a great day!
So as you.
And also remember who was the Rock that Christ built his Church upon, and that he also said to listen to his Church.
If you believed that Satan won and that there hasn't been true Christians in 2000 years then you are calling Christ a liar.
heretical to YOU. To orthodox Christianity. But at one point, Gnosticism was a main contender for the main idea of Christianity.
It never was, Arianism had literally a better chance, Gnosticism was always super cringe and stupid
I would be careful about throwing a stumbling block in front of a little one. Those that call that book heretical killed the first century Christians. Christians do not assassinate people.
The hell are you talking about?
If you trust the Gospel of Thomas, sure
Right on! Do you mean like Mark and Luke did? Paul almost certainly did.
Jude quoted from The book of Enoch...
Those are the oldest words of Christ that we know of btw... Have you read it?
Yes, I recommend Ehrman's accessible translation of these apocrypha. I'm more skeptical of early Thomas claims than you are; it seems to have been popular mostly among the proto-Gnostics and written in the second century. That makes it a fascinating look at early Jesus traditions outside the four gospels but not a source we can confidently use as Jesus quotes.
I think it's possible that Jesus Ben Stada wrote Thomas myself, and that the Nazarene was using his work. Who knows. It's good stuff either way. It got us here.
I just don't give a rats ass what the church says lol, and neither did the Nazarene.
I don't get it
Not in any voluntary sense. That does not meant he would not have experienced normal human attraction towards the opposite sex, but that is different from lustful passions.
No, but also, pre-marital relationship did not exist at that time.
Yeah.
It has to do with Genesis 3 which states that one of the consequences of original sin is:
I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children
Since Mary was not born with the stain of original sin some very pious Marian devotees believe that she did not feel any pain while giving birth.
Is that not taught by the Catholic Church? Mary having no pain during birth?
No, it’s a permitted view for Catholics to hold but not doctrine. I for example do not subscribe to this interpretation.
Oh ok thank you
In the Catholic Church, Mary is very heavily talked about. Personally for me, I wasn’t taught that, and if I was, I probably wasn’t paying attention
Ohhh I see thank you so much! I do know that pre-martial relationships that are like now didn’t really have a name back then, however, people were betrothed to one another
Imo and this is probably foolish haha. But I cannot imagine God or Jesus for that matter, being attracted to humans.
Because he literally treats us like children and lambs to be guided and cherished.
This is one of the reasons I cannot imagine other "Gods" as real if they had relations with humans. How can they create us and be attracted to us too? Makes no sense.
The historical Jesus was human but whether he was interested in pursuing a relationship is unknown.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
You're most welcome
💕
Jesus could have... God said that it was not good for Man to be alone, so there was a way... Jesus just chose not to. And remember when He was laying on the floor and the woman cried all over His feet, then wiped them with her hair... that is the most erotic thing you will ever read in the bible, don't know HOW He survived that, but He did...
I know! That is honestly! But also, that’s why I also look at other sources from the time! Back then, people got married in their teens
Yeah fully human means fully sexual but that could also mean fully asexual
A part of me wonders if Jesus was being self referential re: eunuchs in Matthew 19:12:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
Not only that , but we hardly know anything about the historical Jesus. He is lost to time. He shows up in the gospels in his 30s. So what did he do as a kid? Was he walking around as a 12 year old god? Did he have many friends? Did he like animals ? How was his sense of humor? ( It certainly doesn't seem like the guy would be the life of the party) Did he have a girlfriend? Did he enjoy reading? Did he dance? Did he enjoy music? What was his favorite food? Did he ever argue ? Did he have a temper? Did he ever travel anywhere with his family? Did he like to draw or paint? Did he enjoy cooking? Was she a talented tekton? How did he earn money? Etc etc etc. We know nothing of the guy. Heck, it almost sounds as if he was made up
That is true!
“Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Why are you saying, "Oh I see, thank you so much," to every single comment?
I’m sure his temptations were unique in perspective. Who else would be offered a temple?
That is true! I don’t think i would’ve been offered a temple
He was fully human and fully God so Jesus understood our sinful urges but he did not committed sin. Know that temptation is not a sin until it is acted. We can be tempted but if allow ourselves to be tempted and act then we will sin. Jesus did not
Yes.
No
Because Mary was immaculately conceived, and Genesis says that labor pain is a consecuence of the original sin and most Church Fathers agreed Jesus birth was miraculous and that not even Mary's hymen was broken. Although it is debated if in the case of Mary that she could have had labor pains as in Revelation 12 it says that the Woman that gave birth to the Messiah screamed from the pain of giving birth (that book is highly symbolic so it could even not mean literal labor pain).
Basically although it is not dogma that Mary did not have labor pains, it is a logical consecuence of the Immaculate conception .
Ohhh I see thank you so much
I believe he did have urges. No romantic relationship was ever recorded. That really wasn’t the focus of the gospels though. Most Christians choose not to imagine that, which is fine. There is some note in Genesis about angels creating children with humans, and that didn’t go well. So, I would guess no. Some have used the idea in fiction tho. I quite like Sue Monk Kidd’s Book of Longings.
To experience human life in its entirety is to know love and to navigate together with someone through marriage and life. The authors of the Bible did us no favors in ommitting lessons on romantic love, and just saying, sex is sin. Jesus didn't sin." Full stop.
Have we forgotten about the concept of asexuality 😭 I'm not saying He was but, it's def not impossible to go life without urges
The Da Vinci Code's (both the novel and the Hollywood movie adaptation) entire plotline revolves around this rather heretical idea.
Catholics have a very, ummmm, special relationship to Marry. Most denominations have a very high view of Mary, but Catholics take it so far they often border on heresy. They get way too close to making her to be a goddess in some cases.
No relationship, but tempted just like all of us.
It’s very unlikely Jesus ever had a relationship as he knew his purpose and also never got married and there would be no reason for any female relationship without marriage. There was no casual male & female relationships between Jewish people back then.
It’s technically possible Jesus was a widow, but there is no mention of it, no evidence of it, and no reason for it to be true.
The biblical evidence we do have would point away from him ever being married as many of his teachings would be a bit strange in this context and Paul specifically doesn’t mention Jesus as being married when he has chances to do so. Early Christian writers also all treat Jesus as if he was unmarried. It would be very strange for there be no mention of it unless nobody knew, but even if that’s the case it makes little sense and would go against the best understanding we have.
"Also, sorry to get off topic, but also, why do people get mad when Mary is depicted as being in pain when she gives birth to Jesus?" IIRC, the Catholics believe something about her not having birth pains. I haven't heard of other Christians minding it, though.
Asexuality exists and it is not abnormal, so we can't say for certain whether our Lord was asexual or if he had urges but mastered them. We do know that He never sinned. As for Mary giving birth being painful, yep, and this makes her very brave. No doubt she was judged terribly by her family and neighbours as well, so it was God's providence that she was to marry Joseph, who decided not to stone her to death for "adultery" like so many petty, vengeful men would have.
Probably why we never hear about his teenage years. 😜
Omg yes
Jesus was indeed god in human form so he did indeed have urges just like all healthy humans.
He just was able to overcome all urges and lead a sinless life.
There is no credible evidence he had sexual relationships with anyone.
Jesus was human, so the devil many time tried to tempt him like in the desert but never Jesus comitted sin, he never lusted, he never insulted, he never killed, he always relied on the Father, because of the human nature. Jesus loves us all, in the same aspect, when he was in the temple he said ”my brothers are those who follow me” he don’t need to fall in love with someone, he doesn’t even need us. But he saved us because we were lost. So no he didn’t have any relationship with a woman
Yeah his wife was Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter
Bro I think about this all the time. Like if he was fully man and fully god, then he presumably got morning wood or wet dreams
Your post kind of begs and important question; did the Jewish believers of Bible times think that all sexual activity was somehow sinful / like 21st century Christians in America /. Or did they have a more nuanced, different view? And while I know everyone will have a strong opinion on this subject, scholarly sources please?
Well, to be fair, the Holy Bible did say that Jesus WAS tempted by the devil, but He never gave in. This just goes to show that there is a distinct difference between THINKING about committing a sin and ACTUALLY sinning. If you THINK about a sin, but don't commit it, then you were tempted, but you never gave in.
Hello, yes Jesus was part human, but you must remember that Jesus was also spirit, and that He is God, and God is without sin, so no, God’s word would contradicted itself, God would not be able to condemn anyone for this sin if ithat was true, if He had lust, because that is what lust is when you are thinking about sex and unmarried. God’s word will never come back void, God is not a man that He shall lie. Jesus never sinned even though He had human flesh, Jesus mission was not to do the things that humans and the world did, but to fulfill His Father’s wishes, to save His creation from an eternal damnation of hell, so that we could have eternal life with God, which Jesus did, and conquered it by dying. Hope this helps you some, the Holy Spirit lead me in telling you this.
Yes urges no relationship
Nah he didn't have any sexual urges, He was human needs, (not wants) and was God at the same time :) hope this help
I imagine He did, but He is perfectly in control of His passions. Jesus' bride is the Church. So, he wouldn't have "had eyes for" any woman other than His bride, the Church. Like seriously, if you want to understand Christianity, look to marriage. St. Paul even uses marriage to talk about how Christ relates to the Church in Ephesians 5. Joe Heschmeyer on YT has several videos talking about marriage and male headship and what those tell us about the Church/Christianity and its beautiful. He did one today about C.S. Lewis and how he actually makes a beautiful case for the papacy without even trying.
The simple fact is that abstinence from sexual urges was a huge part of Greco-Roman ideas about piety, and we would never in a million chances get a depiction of him any other way.
This is reflected in his teachings about divorce and sexual temptation (Mt 5:27-29) which were much more extreme than other Jewish teachers of his day, but they do reflect Greek piety.
And i have 16 names in blessings!
I can't answer either one of your questions with 100% certainty. But if he was to come back as a human male, he would have certainly had urges. I believe otherwise he wouldn't be human and wouldn't be able to relate to being a human. But then again I always kind of thought that line of thought was interesting anyway. If God knew everything, why would Jesus have to come back as a man? They are supposed to be God and man. The Trinity is very confusing. They are separate but they are together but he had to send his son to save the world but it is himself he sending. Very straining on the brain if you think about it more than a couple minutes.
Did he have a relationship? I would say absolutely not. Friendships maybe a platonic relationship but no sex. He would be breaking his own rules. There's nothing that's says God can't break his own rules, but I don't think that would happen.
Honestly, this is something about the Bible that I find frustrating. Like the implication here is that sex is inherently sin, and that feels wrong to me.
This is a very interesting question because the mere act of lusting after a woman is already sin according to Jesus but i firmly believe Jesus lived a sinless life....but i alsi believe he fully understands our temptations as the scriptures say. Hmm
Ive no answer but Im excited to discuss this with my husband.
The novel The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis covers this idea (and more) in a manner that offended many conservative Christians, including the Catholics, Orthodox, and others. Few of them actually read the book (or saw the Martin Scorsese / Paul Schrader film), and yet believe that they know what's in it. Sadly, this is very much their attitude toward the Bible.
I think it's a very good book that carefully explores what it means to be the son of man and very human. The film does it justice, with Willem Defoe as Jesus and a similarly talented cast including Harvey Keitel as Judas, Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene, Harry Dean Stanton as Paul and David Bowie (in an odd performance) as Pontius Pilate.
If you wanted to be dismissive, you could call it fanfic, but then you'd have to say the same about other works of literature like Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, and even The Screwtape Letters.
Jesus was 100% man, so yes it came with all of the same feelings, sensations, urges.
Mary Magdalene
Jesus looks at us as his children so I would say no he did not have sexual urges towards us.
He never had a relationship, and he never lusted after another person.
Other people answer your other questions very well.
I have no clue why some people like to portray jesus' birth as painless.
Even in the catholic ideas that Mary was perfect and sinless, it'd still hurt. Its not like sinless beings are incapable of feeling pain (christ on the cross for example). If it was painless, scripture would mention that as a miracle.
So in other words, I have no idea where the idea of rhe birth being painless comes from. Id gamble: sexism. "Birth pain is the weakness and flaw of women! Only evil women experience difficult births!" Itd be a fundamentally stupid view, but not all christians are smart.
It could be: The idea that because God in genesis made birth painful, and cursed man to work the earth, that jesus being sinless would therefore avoid these problems. Hiwever, its not like jesus didnt do labor, he was a carpenter after all. So I dont know if it makes sense that Mary's birth would be pain free.
The gospel‘s focus on a short period of Jesus‘s life and, with the success of the gentile mission, the subsequent history of the church move beyond the direct influence of his close family. So I don’t think we can be absolutely sure about much of Jesus’s private life. It is likely that Mary Magdalene was important.
It is very reasonable to assume that Mary was in pain during child birth. That pain is nothing small, but it does pass. At least her pain produced something very good. I had gallstone pain, and the only benefit of that was a removed gallbladder.
Jesus (Yeshua) didn't have sex with His creation. It's possible to go through this life and not have sex, as difficult for whatever reason it is for some people to fathom this.
Jesus 100% had baby boy boners
Oh definitely! I actually found out that happens in babies
In the excluded Gnostic, gospel, the Gospel of Phillip refers to Mary Magdalene as Jesus' "companion" and mentions him kissing her, but scholars interpret this connection as a spiritual or platonic one, not a marital or sexual one, within the context of Gnostic theology. Make of that what you will. Other than that, there is no information one way to really know the answer to your question.
If I were a Christian, I would hope that as one of the tenants he came to Earth to experience being human. Being human IMO includes sexuality, even if not acted upon so it makes sense he would have had urges. If he did or did not act on it is even more speculative. I would think if he wanted the full human experience, it would include having and understanding all human relationships, including marriage.
Indeed, its one of my pet peeves with the Catholic Church and figured into my parting of the ways with them. Celibacy is unnatural and unhealthy for most humans. The Churches restriction of this is more harmful than helpful IMO, but that is a discussion for a different thread.
What's interesting is we know nothing about his 30 years before he was "Christ". He could have had a family for all we know.
That is true! That’s what I’m thinking! I mean, he was 33 years old when he died, and back then, he would’ve probably gotten married around maybe like 15 or 17! Mary married Joseph when she was 12 or 14, and he was in his 30s or 40s
Mary did not marry Joseph when she was 12. She was only betrothed to him when Jesus was born. You might be thinking of the protoevangelium of James, which is not a canonical text. Many people like to cite it to say that Mary was 12, but it doesnt even say that. It says she was 16 when she was pregnant. The Bible refers to Mary as a woman and calls Jairus' daughter (who was 12) a 'little girl'
Christians like to forget that fact. Of course, they ignore a lot of actual facts.
I know! I’m going to school to become a historian, so I use a ton of different sources! Like, while I do use the Bible sometimes, it’s important to also read sources from people of the time!
I'd say yes and yes. He was a man and where this idea came from that he had to be celibate is so odd. He may have been married or had a lover. Jews at that time married very, very young. We had a class in college about this liklihood.