Jesus Christ was an LII INTJ

[calm charisma]

A Revised Analysis: Jesus Christ was an LII (INTJ)

Jesus Christ, a figure revered in Christianity, can be compellingly analyzed through the lens of Socionics. While his divine nature is beyond the scope of this analysis, his human experiences and teachings offer valuable insights into his personality which I intend to share in this post.

Putting aside his divine nature and coming down in form of a human to restore man to himself, Jesus was fully human with a human mind and identity. As shocking and doubtful as it might be to some, He was an LII, an LII who was inspired by the vision of bringing man back to himself.

Below is the explanation

To start with, Jesus demonstrated a strong preference for rationality and intuition. He didn't lead with perception as he was bounded by the rules he upheld internally. He was a rational, abstract, unconventional, strategic and independent thinker who never succumbed to traditions that didn't suit his inner compass, stubborn in his beliefs and resistant to external structures all the way. He also outlined to be a one who never changes as he is always the same forever as in Hebrews 13:8. He had an ingrained sense of truth and justice which he upheld over contradictory external input and this was a dominant part of him.

His teachings were also very eccentric, often abstract and philosophical, requiring deep thought and contemplation. He challenged societal norms and religious traditions and was no respecter of regalia showcasing his independent and unconventional thinking. He also used parables and metaphors capable of conveying complex ideas in accessible ways through lead Ti, auxiliary Ne and Demonstrative Ni. He was an intellectual and visionary who envisioned a new future and inspired others to follow, not through physical force or coercion although he understood the language of it but deemed it unnecessary as in his understanding that man was appointed freewill. He was cognizant of boundaries and people's choices and honoured them accordingly demonstrating open-mindedness and consideration of possibilities.

A deep researcher, well read and knowledgeable, prioritizing intellectualism even right from his childhood when he visited the temple, he had the most eccentric views and avoided adapting to external structures, was harshly critical of traditions and hardly twisted his words to suit society but uttered them bluntly which all together made him socially awkward, enigmatic and intimidating to the people around him and as a result branded an outcast. He believed that truth was vital and must be said to ensure efficiency and eventual harmony over the temporal feelings and reservations of the group.

Although being critical of societal norms and traditions, he also demonstrated empathy through Auxiliary Ne, Role Fi and Suggestive Fe. He occasionally appeared easygoing, diplomatic and had a childlike attention toward children, loved ones and several men and women that surrounded him even at a point illustrating to them that they had to accept the kingdom of heaven as little children, signifying open mindedness, tolerance and acceptance of others. To most people he appeared to be ageless, enigmatic and even intimidating in behaviour.

Jesus prioritized ideas, laws and insights over business, position and mundane activities. He backed up his knowledge with courage and assertively sought to open the minds of the people around him to them, being up and competent at delivering his teachings to the people, expertly answering questions that arose in process. He was visionary, multidimensional, philosophical and had an ingrained sense of justice and principles devoid of the traditional, never compromising it for any community, people or tribe.

He was inspired by the role of saving humanity and reconciling them back to God. A static, rational idealist and revolutionary who sought to bring change to the minds and hearts of the people around him; a good example of an unselfish, poised, self aware, assertive, inspirational, mystical and purposeful LII who embraced his eccentricity unapologetically, was focused on the present by improving himself and confidently sought to bring change to the world around him in his own unique way.

He is a Dominant LII Neutral Subtype.

This is my observation based on several criteria and analysis and is open to criticism, perspectives or arguments. I'm eager to digest and perhaps if needed challenge users' opinions on this.

[CosmicCat]

The New Testament thinks the same as you.

"For God hath not subjected unto angels the world to come, whereof we speak. [...] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all." (Hebrews 2:5, 9 DRA)

The English major's answer is that Jesus was ILI/ILE. His archetype in fiction is highly studied in English university departments across the world. But your answer is closer to Catholic theology.

[chriscorey]

The New Testament thinks the same as you.

"For God hath not subjected unto angels the world to come, whereof we speak. [...] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all." (Hebrews 2:5, 9 DRA)

The English major's answer is that Jesus was ILI/ILE. His archetype in fiction is highly studied in English university departments across the world. But your answer is closer to Catholic theology.

How did Jesus feel about that?

I saw the angels as eiders, teachers; why I'm so good in bed.

[CosmicCat]

How did Jesus feel about that?

I saw the angels as eiders, teachers; why I'm so good in bed.

We can't say for certain what Jesus thinks, but everything in creation--including stories--He placed there for a reason. "But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work." (John 5:17 DRA)

[FreelancePoliceman]

I feel deja vu, @Poptart.

[Distance]

Ethics is the last thing on the mind of T types.

It is there, but it works downward not upward in egocentric types. Passive is the word. Paul was considered an ESTJ, a devout and zealous man, but everything in him was thru training, not by innovation.

LII are people who make models to make sense of existing paradigms. Fe is trouble for them and they seek it through a dual, it is dry, wryly dry in a vacuous introverted thinking state. Hardly enough to call and congregate a movement thru emotive appeal to rationality. He was zealous and forceful and an organizer.

I have an idea who he was in type.

[Still Alive]

Religions are an invention of Ni base types. There is no god. IEI have written down some conservative ethical values in a book for others to follow. Brilliant takes like "women are subordinate to men in every way" presented as "truth". Isn't it funny that the bible is called the book of "truth" and that the word truth is mentioned dozens of times? Truth truth truth, the way to identify Ni base types

[FreelancePoliceman]

Ethics is the last thing on the mind of T types.

It is there, but it works downward not upward in egocentric types. Passive is the word. Paul was considered an ESTJ, a devout and zealous man, but everything in him was thru training, not by innovation.

LII are people who make models to make sense of existing paradigms. Fe is trouble for them and they seek it through a dual, it is dry, wryly dry in a vacuous introverted thinking state. Hardly enough to call and congregate a movement thru emotive appeal to rationality. He was zealous and forceful and an organizer.

I have an idea who he was in type.

I don't know what's going on with all the posts recently about how wonderful LIIs are, but they all seem pretty off-base. But what you're saying about LII and ethics grabbed my eye.

The way Socionics texts use "ethical" to mean F types is misleading. The only explanation I can come up with is that the word might connote something different in Russian.

The conscious attitude of LxI types represses extraverted feeling. If you've known many you'll see they have characteristically severe problems meshing with people. Unlike xLI, who have similar problems, the unconscious desire for LxI is to get in touch with the emotional atmosphere around them and derive their values from that. The program function is the immediate tool, so what happens is that the unconscious Fe is approached by means of the conscious Ti. In other words, they end up trying to derive ethical principles from logical principles. Since Fe is the unconscious model, these principles tend to be presented as universal and absolute (representing the extraverted rather than the introverted ideal). And they tend to approach ethical issues without much uncertainty and in a rather black-and-white manner.

The typical LxI spends a lot of time thinking about ethics, not necessarily in an academic sense (though there's a reason Kant is typed LII): just plainly the question of "what's right and what's wrong." Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of both types illustrate that really well; I think you should read them.

----

Re. Paul's type, the book of Acts presents him as a theater kid (the word for "tent maker," which is what his job is usually translated as, more usually means "stagehand," and given the book's other references to Greek theater and the author's negative opinion of Paul, I think that was what was meant). I don't believe in a historical Paul, but that characterization seems to me consistent with the epistles attributed to him...whiny, grandiose, self-contradictory every few sentences, very happy to plagiarize. So he's Beta NF in my mind lol.

[Still Alive]

The weird thing is I don't really think in terms of right and wrong, and I don't really sit around reflecting on ethical issues. I doubt Kant was LII. I have a difficult time seeing myself writing books. My mind is just way too scattered and I change subjects on a whim. For books you need to be somewhat methodical, approach publishers, organize elements to accomplish things. I don't do any of that. I find the point of T types thinking a lot about ethical issues kinda nonsensical. You might as well not use dichotomies at that point

[Distance]

I don't know what's going on with all the posts recently about how wonderful LIIs are, but they all seem pretty off-base. But what you're saying about LII and ethics grabbed my eye.

The way Socionics texts use "ethical" to mean F types is misleading. The only explanation I can come up with is that the word might connote something different in Russian.

The conscious attitude of LxI types represses extraverted feeling. If you've known many you'll see they have characteristically severe problems meshing with people. Unlike xLI, who have similar problems, the unconscious desire for LxI is to get in touch with the emotional atmosphere around them and derive their values from that. The program function is the immediate tool, so what happens is that the unconscious Fe is approached by means of the conscious Ti. In other words, they end up trying to derive ethical principles from logical principles. Since Fe is the unconscious model, these principles tend to be presented as universal and absolute (representing the extraverted rather than the introverted ideal). And they tend to approach ethical issues without much uncertainty and in a rather black-and-white manner.

The typical LxI spends a lot of time thinking about ethics, not necessarily in an academic sense (though there's a reason Kant is typed LII): just plainly the question of "what's right and what's wrong." Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of both types illustrate that really well; I think you should read them.

----

Re. Paul's type, the book of Acts presents him as a theater kid (the word for "tent maker," which is what his job is usually translated as, more usually means "stagehand," and given the book's other references to Greek theater and the author's negative opinion of Paul, I think that was what was meant). I don't believe in a historical Paul, but that characterization seems to me consistent with the epistles attributed to him...whiny, grandiose, self-contradictory every few sentences, very happy to plagiarize. So he's Beta NF in my mind lol.

Good write-up, fp.

The dichotomy T & F is like temperature of hot and cold. Heat or molecular motion is its core property.

Hot is relative term. It relates to temp. Ethical is F, and it relates to relating to theory of mind about humans, or gauging that and we call it humanities and personal.

Anything away from it we call it impersonal interests.

Even in impersonal interests there is a human element to it, so it is never split or cleaved into something separate.

So I think the idea of being one thing or the other is starting points that determines the branded element.

I like to call thinking parts and feeling wholes. They are inseparable, it depends on where you start.

[CosmicCat]

Re. Paul's type, the book of Acts presents him as a theater kid (the word for "tent maker," which is what his job is usually translated as, more usually means "stagehand," and given the book's other references to Greek theater and the author's negative opinion of Paul, I think that was what was meant). I don't believe in a historical Paul, but that characterization seems to me consistent with the epistles attributed to him...whiny, grandiose, self-contradictory every few sentences, very happy to plagiarize. So he's Beta NF in my mind lol.

Paul is EIE. This is his story:

conspiracist trash collector hoards worthless unsaleable "treasure" from prying eyes and collects paychecks to help himself since nobody else will and your dirty deeds to ensure his paychecks so he can buy things if ... the price. is. right!

He was not a good person, but EIE has just enough intuition that it's possible to treat it as holy scripture.

Jobs that involve building something with your hands indicate 4-dimensional . "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need." (Ephesians 4:28 DRA). It would be nice to go through all of the common jobs and type them according to socionics... but who can be bothered?

Didn't know that tent-maker could mean stagehand. It's all Greek to me.

[CosmicCat]

Christ figures sorted by meta-level.

Level 1. Object. Tommy Pickles from Rugrats.
Level 2. Subject. Shinji Ikari from Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Level 3. Register. Ash Ketchum from Pokémon first season (all the movies and rest are non-canon).
Level 4. Language. Jesus of Nazareth Himself. Watch The Chosen because the movie is always better than the book.
Level 5. Representation. The In-Betweener from Marvel comics.
Level 6. Cognition. Keiichi Morisato from Oh My Goddess! The name of the anime is blasphemy just like one of Jesus's seven last words.
Level 7. Control. GLaDOS from Portal 1, Portal 2.
Level 8. Design. Nikola Tesla? For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten ***, so that anyone who believes in him might not live in Africa, but receive electricity.
Level 9. Kingly. [...]
Level 10. Cosmic. [...]
Level 11. Divine. [...]

It's a very important part of Nikola Tesla's mythos that he wanted to make electricity free because "it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8 DRA)

[CosmicCat]

The "neutral" in the OP is a bone thrown to Carl Jung, who said that Jesus is the archetype of the Self.

[strawberryrain]

I didn't have the strength to read all your' posts but in my opinion Jesus was not "the savior" but a man who claimed to be sent from god but was actually in bed with the devil, and when you prey to Jesus you are actually praying to the devil's friend, and when he claims to have all these miracles he did he is actually making fun of the reader.

[CosmicCat]

I didn't have the strength to read all your' posts but in my opinion Jesus was not "the savior" but a man who claimed to be sent from god but was actually in bed with the devil, and when you prey to Jesus you are actually praying to the devil's friend, and when he claims to have all these miracles he did he is actually making fun of the reader.

Try Latter Day Saints. They think the same.

Also your personality does hysteresis, risk homeostasis, emergence, the butterfly effect, second-order effects, supervenience, systemantics, prototyping, games, time lord, emotions, strange attractors, fiduciary, unintended consequences, and meta-levels.

You don't need a theory to know these things Aladdin. Open sesame!

The celebrity Wittgenstein also talked about familiar resemblances, which basically causes all of your knowledge.