Oh shit, you're right.
Oh shit, you're right.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Although, I wouldn't doubt that Jesus was ENTp. It kind of makes sense in the way Gandhi was ENTp.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
EDIT: I think Jesus was ENFJ because he always told person to open their hearts, which is verylike. Though, he did do some perceiving behaviours by refusing to give in to authority, so it gets kind of confusing. He was also very introspective as well, so it is really hard to figure him out personally.
He could of also been INFP, I think that his personality had extraverted feeling as one of two main functions. Though, he also was intuitive for the fact that he probably thought of creative ways to turn water into wine and perform other miracles, unless he really did have those powers?
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The world is flat, black people are dumb and smell funny, Jews are an inferior race, red wine is the only kind of alcohol that is good for you, and I'm just a close-minded sensor.... fuck me.
I had a feeling a sensor would say this. I take back what I said about intuitives being more open-minded than sensors, that was very biased of me. I'm pretty sure you can get a sensing person that is 10 times more open minded than an intuitive person. However, out of all the things you said, the only thing correct was that most sensing people probably believed that the world is flat a thousand years ago, it's not saying their close-minded, but sensors believe what they receive from their senses and through your senses the world was flat. Now, of course there were intuitive people that believed the world was flat and sensing people that believed it was round.Originally Posted by Rocky
I think Jesus was every type.
like
xxxx?
that could be.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
A. UDP isnt an INTj
B. Jesus was definitley not INTj
Just don't call me Jesus, please.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Who the fuck cares about a 2000 year old corpse. How much sense does it make to try to type a person that possibly did not exist and if he did he has a very obscured imiage. Blah. Jesus.
Ill take my guess at this. I think he was ENTJ.
I have a friend who is very into the study of cult "programming" and "deprogramming." He resembles many classical depictions of Jesus. His life also seems to mirror Jesus' own in many ways, although perhaps a bit younger and more modern. (his gospel is "True Metal" guitar, for example) He enjoys fasting because it gives him spritual insight. (or so he says) He talks in a very detatched, seperated way that reminds me of Jesus, although without the sense of authority. He's much more timid, although that may be changing in him.
I've typed him as an Ixxx. The introvert that Jung described as being "terrified" of the psychic object. I imagine that the retreat from the object would be so severe as to completely withdraw inward into an internal world without even the aid of extroverted intuition nor extroverted thinking to supplant it. Such a world could only emerge from the unconscious itself.
Alternatively, he could have been an Exxx. I have a friend who is that type, too, but in that case he would have needed a lot of outside influence because Exxxs rarely create their own viewpoints.
He could have been an xxxx, but I think it more likely Judas Iscariot, perhaps, was one of those. The betrayal of Jesus to the Romans may have been an act by the collective unconscious against him as an "usurper" who dared to defy the will of providence outright.
"What you do, do quickly."
Here's my Ixxx friend's website.
http://www.thevampireclub.com/gavin/
Re: What was Jesus' personality type?
If we assume socionics will apply here then INFj no doubt about it.
Addition:
Damn...socionics is so different from MBTI...in MBTI he would have been INFj...here I dunno yet what.
Seconded.
INTj Mathematician -- "What, me worry?"
"As intelligence increases, happiness goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs." -- Lisa Simpson
It's funny how everyone thinks that Jesus was their personality type. I agree with Joy (if I understood what she meant) in that Jesus must have been alrounded.
Maybe if you could back up what you are saying, instead of just begging for attention...Who the fuck cares about a 2000 year old corpse. How much sense does it make to try to type a person that possibly did not exist and if he did he has a very obscured imiage. Blah. Jesus.
tcaudilllg,
I don't see how I could ever join something called a vampire club. Too dark for me. There is an easy way to find out if he is infj though (assuming I am infj): ask him what he usually thinks about, specially at the time when you see that he is zoned off. I tend to constantly think about how things could be different in general, though my focus has to do with people most of the time. If someone I trust shows interest into what I might be thinking by simply asking, I will answer any personal question without reservation. Emphasis on 'trust.'
There is no need for me to back up anything. This is common sense.
VI Jesus
rocky said jesus cant be typed. i disagree. if inanimate objects can be typed along with every other historical figure, then we can type jesus.
1. jesus had weak. matthew chapter 4. didnt eat for forty days, was tempted by the devil with some bread, turned it down. wouldnt see
dominants do that.
2. couldnt have beendominant, he could have been king of a bunch of kingdoms later in the chapter, but said no thanks.
3. he spoke in parables and analogy. we all know which type loves that sort of thing.
4. jesus was all about mind over matter. can we saydominant?
5. ostracised and crucified by the community. sound familiar?
LII !
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
beta and their jesus fetishes.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Those images of Jesus have no historical significance, and I think the evidence points toward the Turin Shroud being a very clever fake, so VI is out.
Taking the Gospels at face value, I'd say the figure they describe would be an INFp perhaps.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
what about infp's and their material fetishes? jesus is not so much about ikea. he likes kickin shit about in the temple and pissin off the authorities because he knows more than them
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
suspend your disbelief in the shroud; what type do you think it is? (the face, not the shroud itself.)
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
I see the Gospel Jesus as being
More- he had one consistent vision and worked on the trends according to it
So, Beta.
I don't think he was ESTp or ISTj, and I think he was irrational rather than rational, and Taciturn. He was also a drifter who did not seem to understand or care much about money and practical matters.
INFp. I don't think this "material fetish" thing you mean means anything.
The face is barely visible with the hair, whiskers, and being overall a faded image.
A few years ago, an "enhanced" image of the shroud of Turin was created. Here is the negative with the enhanced version.:
And about four years ago, forensic graphic artists created this unmistakably Semitic image of Jesus, based on accounts in the Gospels, and also taking into account his race/stock/clothing and grooming conventions:
Of course, none of them are particularly suitable for accurate V.I. but it is kind of fun. Most artistic depictions of Jesus portray a pretty chaste-looking, lamb-of-God type, painfully aware of his fate... which leads me to think INFp right away. Here's Da Vinci's classic take:
Hey man I did this already.
THIS WAS MY IDEA EVERYONE.
yeah, baby, it's hilarious because giving a shot at seriously v.i.-ing depictions of jesus leads me to believe he was INFp just because i kept thinking, "man, jesus looks like auvi!"
and regarding materialism etc, with ENFjs and INFps both, their polr (probably plus whatever ethical belief system they have espoused -- or not espoused) seems to dictate a lot of their materialism/love for shiny things and bright sensations.
thus you have the "devil" and "angel" INFps. ;p same with ENFjs.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
My question to you is, did Jesus even exist?
Basically what you are doing is the equivilent of typing the imaginary friend you have in your head. Everyone can see it differently. This is worse than trying to type Alexander the Great. Besides, the Bible is full of contradictions anyway, lol.
BTW, @Auvi: why is that forensic graphic of Jesus extremly far from every other picture I have seen of Jesus? Maybe it's just eating at my subjective-perceptions (yay for socionics), but it bothers me.
I've seen requests to type fictional characters, so your silence is greatly appreciated.
thing.
Or maybe Jesus did exist, yet the stories behind him evolved into a distorted work of fiction. For example, the arian controversy in the early church that caused a compromise doctrine called the 'trinity,' if you get my drift.
By the way, VIing Jesus by paintings is totally rediculous considering that there are absolutely no pictures of Jesus anywhere that actually look like him, and the shroud of turin has been proven to be a fake.
However, if you really do want to VI jesus, I suggest you try reading some things he says in the new testament and analyzing that. You are more likely to get somewhere.
By the way, the below strikes me as -S-J ...
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labour or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' Fore the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (Matthew 6:25-34, NIV).
Now that I think about it... isn't it the INFjs that are supposed to look prophetic and holy?
It actually isn't too out there as far as images of Jesus go. The image most Americans are familar with is that of a very gentile-looking man - blue eyes, distinguished "Anglican" nose, and a thin austere mouth, long chestnut hair, and a thin beard. This is mostly under the influence of the Papal conventions. Like this guy:
However, just as Christianity itself seems to be adapted to various cultures and peoples, so has the image of Christ. Look, for instance, at this Greco-Roman rendering of him in the guise of Helios from about 300 BC:
Or this African depiction:
Or this Chinese illustration:
When confronted with power, the INFp make nice and manipulate their environs to make friends of them. There is no INFp in this world or any world nor has there ever been or ever will be that will purposefully create a situation in which there stands a great mass of people who are willing to kill him. (This is not to say that an INFp can not by accident cause circumstances to happen in which he is killed, but he will never f**ing ever purposefully for a prolonged period of time commit behaviour the only purpose of which is to accentuate a conflict, anywhere, ever. )
The INFj is called martyrical because it distances itself from worldly affairs and lets others misuse it. The INFj will not ever ever ever lead a religious or political sect bent on martyrdom.
There is only one group that is noted for its habit of proactively causing situations in which great harm is caused upon it even unto death. That's the ENFj.
Martin Luther King, ******, Mahatma Gandhi (yes, this goes for him too, no INFp will ever live the kind of life Gandhi lived, read his bloody biographies!)... see the effing pattern...
INFp = compliant, compromising, polite, calculating, bends at the slightest wind.
ENFj = obstinate, lives his own fantasy to the end, carefree, fanatical.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I agree with you. I don't think that the figure described by the gospels is consistent enough for typing.
The key word then is "purposeful" -- besides, from the gospel accounts themselves it is not clear that "great masses of people" actively wanted to kill him.
Anyway, as I said, I agree with Rocky.
You are quite right in the sense that there is no way to know about the historical Jesus. On the other hand the actions of the Jesus translated to us by the Bible are so clearly ENFj there's not even any question about it. The idea of symbolically becoming the puppet of the masses, taking the "sins" of other people, and being willing to do anything as a symbolical action to wake other people into redemption is the basic modus operandi by which the ENFj keeps the ISTj in line. This is what every ENFj engages in... It's the archetypal modus operandi of this particular type... like the INTp critic, ISFp peacekeeper etc. the ENFj is what he is because he creates powerful, meaningful, symbolical scenes at the end of which he becomes one with the display and is thus personally destroyed, either only symbolically or concretely. Only this kind of action is a powerful enough sign to the ISTj that he is willing to believe he has the ENFj's loyalty and repent his own harshness.The key word then is "purposeful" -- besides, from the gospel accounts themselves it is not clear that "great masses of people" actively wanted to kill him.
Anyway, as I said, I agree with Rocky.
No other comments on this. Only people who know nothing about ENFjs would disagree.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Now, just because someone does not want to believe in the credence of Jesus' possibility to have existed is no reason to say he can not be typed, that's just rediculous. It's no diffrent then the 100s of other people who have typed their descriptions in here and asked for a typing, though maybe that might make it a little hard taking the historical time frame of about 2000 years.
Personally, I wouldn't place much faith in typing in general; it is never totally 100% accurate anyways with all the people and their squabbling opinions, anyhow.
Jesus and other "historical" figures
It seems that there is a significant amount of sources to "prove" to a considerable level that people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Jesus did exist...in the cases of Alexander and Caesar, there are a few stories that are not possible to verify, or are unlikely to be true.
But in the case of Jesus, this goes to another level. It would seem to me that it difficult to invent a Roman emperor, but not to invent a religious icon. I don't doubt that Jesus did exist (in the sense that I know people have been called that), but with the "historical" one, of course the stories about him are disputable, as is his very existence (although this is not so important an issue to me as the alleged stories).
There may well be many cases in history of things being misappropriated...it even happens now. It is puzzling to me sometimes when earnest historians talk of the historical Jesus as if they are aware of some source that I am not (although I am aware that it may not be desirable to define what is meant by Jesus everytime you simply want to discuss the early church etc.).
It's quite frustating not having certainity about recent events\people...although it's not like it really matters much of the time. It is rather a peeve to have people have certainity though, and to take things to heart all the time.
I type Jesus as ISTp
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Nah, he is\was\never was blatantly an EIE
The person of Jesus Christ was so actualized that typing him maybe impossible.
I'd also be careful since depending on which sect of Christianity you espouse, if any, what you're doing in this thread maybe considered heretical. Thinking of some of the non-Chalcedonian churches, it may not be correct to assign a sociotype to a Jesus Christ whose essence is an inseperable, whole union of human and divine. At least not without extending the socionics elements to deal with metaphysical definitions.
Jesus Christ, the man who probably existed but wasn't magic, seemed INFj from his messages/teachings.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
.
I believe personality weaknesses are related to a sin nature. I believe that Jesus has an EII thinking style and usually uses, but doesn't need supplied with
Reply With Quote
