Jesus and other "historical" figures

[The Reality Denialist]

Can not disagree with ultimate drama queen ending.



Yes, this what I got from him the first time I heard. I never asked for it.

Let's set things straight...

[Tallmo]

And I do not think everything is complete projection to be honest, though the descriptions are definitely more blurry. But people here do not have a complete view on IEIs as well and just see them as whimps than for the people they actually are IRL.

Yes, we always project things into blurry things What I like about Socionics is that it gives me tools to check things myself in real life. I have killed many of my own projections by meeting people of all types and typing them and see for myself how they work. It's very important to be able to type in an "objective way", meaning I can't just follow stereotypical descriptions and type people by them. Then I will only confirm my own misconceptions. Instead one should learn to see the functions directly and how they react with my functions. Well, not only that, but that's one thing. In MyersBriggs it's harder to learn the real types that are out there. Because MBTI gives less hints on what to look for, the "map" is not good enough, and because some things are just plain wrong. For example, I don't have a type in MBTI, because there is no such thing as in MBTI, yet that function actually exists.

[dot]

Yes, we always project things into blurry things What I like about Socionics is that it gives me tools to check things myself in real life. I have killed many of my own projections by meeting people of all types and typing them and see for myself how they work. It's very important to be able to type in an "objective way", meaning I can't just follow stereotypical descriptions and type people by them. Then I will only confirm my own misconceptions. Instead one should learn to see the functions directly and how they react with my functions. Well, not only that, but that's one thing. In MyersBriggs it's harder to learn the real types that are out there. Because MBTI gives less hints on what to look for, the "map" is not good enough, and because some things are just plain wrong. For example, I don't have a type in MBTI, because there is no such thing as in MBTI, yet that function actually exists.

I would say I am pretty secure with my typings IRL as I mostly rely on real life experiences with people, if that's what you are implying. And it works for me so far! But yes socionics obviously does describe the functions way more accurately and is much more accurate in general, as I said before. It's easy though to use the test from MBTI (since it is more visually pleasing for strangers IRL) to let people do it (and yes I am aware there are mistypings).. though I use a mix of letting people actually do these 'tests' in real life, Filatovas potraits, actual experiences from much better typers than me from Youtube, what I know about these people I am typing and so on. Plus after a few years of learning about this/being obsessed with socionics I've gotten very secure with people IRL, it's not that hard and most of the time I've gotten people's types right (but that's just my opinion obviously).

This is what works for me personally though as a method. And I do have a certain gut feel for the functions when I see them in real life, it is pretty easy for me to spot Fe doms and I just now when I feel Se valuing folks for example. This doesn't have to work for everyone though.

Yeah trying to type a person whose existence itself could be doubted is hard, but the way the bible portrays Jesus (it was obviously written by different people) is very much NF for me, if Jesus actually was a real person. Who knows who the actual Jesus was? Maybe he was made up by people back then, maybe the person we knows as 'Jesus' was some random guru wandering through the Middle East a few thousand years ago.. who knows for real after all. I'm also an Atheist so I don't believe in the Jesus was every type thing.. since I am trying to pin down whom he was if that person really existed.. a human being, who most likely just had one type.. as normal human.

[Tallmo]

I'm also an Atheist so I don't believe in the Jesus was every type thing.. since I am trying to pin down whom he was if that person really existed.. a human being, who most likely just had one type.. as normal human.

Let me clarify what i meant previously. I'm less interested in Jesus as a human being, and more interested in the symbol. Let's say that we are typing the pagan god Thor. Nobody would be interested in the "historical Thor", or any such speculations, instead we look at the mythical figure and try to type him. So he fought against giants, great to know! That would maybe indicate ego, fine.

Same goes for Jesus, I would like to type him purely as a mythological being, a symbol that points at something psychological. Detached from the historical context. So then one uses the kind of jungian approach that Bertrand suggested and argue that he is every type, or transcends type. Obviously gods (archetypes) are not human, they don't follow human laws, so it's possible.

But not all gods transcend type. Thor doesn't. But it could be argued that Jesus does. But it depends on the approach one takes. I understand your NF typing totally.

It has nothing to do with being an atheist or believer. More about the connection of mythological projection to psychology.

So my approach was that I am typing a fictional character, but one that is archetypal.

[Aylen]

Yeah, good point. As an archetype for individuation he doesn't really have a type. Not like pagan gods who can be easily typed, at least roughly, because they represent certain one-sided qualities.

But one can have different approaches to this. If I open the Bible and read the gospels, then Jesus seems gamma NT to me. I especially note Te>Ti and strong Ni. Some might disagree with this, but then we can read together and debate his type. Some might emphasize the philanthropy and type him Delta.

So one can type a god by the archetype or by more detailed study of the mythological texts. But these two don't always match.

I think this is because Jesus is such a young myth, and the actual historical events (if any) got mythologized in a relatively short time. The text then became dogma and hasn't change very much. If we look at more organic, pagan myths then the gods usually express themselves according to their archetype. Like Thor is always a strongman, he doesn't say very smart things. But he is an old myth, told and re-told through the centuries.

They don't call it the new testament (NT) for nothing. No surprise you can see it with a Te flavor. I am pretty sure if you are picking up on any IEs they would be attributed to the writers (there were many) but St Paul is thought to be the writer of at least some of the books. From what I have read he could very will fit ILI, if you are using a socionics framework. Jesus, if he did exist, did not write any of it, obviously, so you are getting the perspective of people who wrote it AD.

Paul the Apostle (Latin: Paulus; Greek: Παῦλος, translit. Paulos; c. 5 – c. 67), commonly known as Saint Paul, and also known by his native name Saul of Tarsus (Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎, translit. Sha'ul ha-Tarsi‎; Greek: Σαῦλος Ταρσεύς, translit. Saulos Tarseus),^[4][5][6] was an apostle(though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who taught the gospel of the Christ to the first century world.^[7] He is generally considered one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age.^[8][9] In the mid-30s to the mid-50s AD, he founded several churches in Asia Minor and Europe. Paul took advantage of his status as both a Jew and a Roman citizen to minister to both Jewish and Roman audiences.
According to writings in the New Testament, prior to his conversion, Paul was dedicated to persecuting the early disciples of Jesus in the area of Jerusalem.^[10] In the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles (often referred to simply as Acts), Paul was traveling on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus on a mission to "arrest them and bring them back to Jerusalem" when the resurrected Jesus appeared to him in a great light. He was struck blind but, after three days, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus, and Paul began to preach that Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God.^[11] Approximately half of the book of Acts deals with Paul's life and works.
Fourteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.^[12] It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews,^[13] but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars.^[14] The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.^[7][8][15] Other scholars argue that the idea of a pseudonymous author for the disputed epistles raises many problems.^[16]
Today, Paul's epistles continue to be vital roots of the theology, worship, and pastoral life in the Catholic and Protestant traditions of the West, and the Orthodox traditions of the East.^[17] Paul's influence on Christian thought and practice has been characterized as being as "profound as it is pervasive", among that of many other apostles and missionaries involved in the spread of the Christian faith.^[7] Augustine of Hippo developed Paul's idea that salvation is based on faith and not "works of the law". Martin Luther's interpretation of Paul's writings influenced Luther's doctrine of sola fide.

Paul is, most likely, the the founding father of modern Christianity.

Edit: I guess the point I am trying to make is there is nothing particularly NT-ish about a man who was born a saviour, whose mission was to show that love is the answer and to willingly die for the sins of humanity. He also hung out with the lowest of the low and preached that the meek shall inherit the earth. Not very Se valuing really but that is not a strong argument. I don't really disagree with that sentiment, in essence. When we are all gone what will be left.

Edit: My favorite author of, alleged, Jesus sayings is the gospel of Thomas which comes off very Ni/Se, to me.

Translated by Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson*

These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down.


(1) And he said: “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”

(2) Jesus says:

(1) “The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All.”

(3) Jesus says:

(1) “If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you.”
(4) “When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty.”

(4) Jesus says:

(1) “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.
(2) For many who are first will become last, (3) and they will become a single one.”

(5) Jesus says:

(1) “Come to know what is in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will become clear to you.
(2) For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest.”

(16) Jesus says:

(1) “Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the earth.
(2) But they do not know that I have come to cast dissension upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
(3) For there will be five in one house: there will be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father.
(4) And they will stand as solitary ones.”

[Socionics Is A Cult]

They don't call it the new testament (NT) for nothing. No surprise you can see it with a Te flavor. I am pretty sure if you are picking up on any IEs they would be attributed to the writers (there were many) but St Paul is thought to be the writer of at least some of the books. From what I have read he could very will fit ILI, if you are using a socionics framework. Jesus, if he did exist, did not write any of it, obviously, so you are getting the perspective of people who wrote it AD.



Paul is, most likely, the the founding father of modern Christianity.

He was certainly the one that made sure it could spread around the world by allowing the Gentiles to be included.

With the New Testament, nothing can be said of any certainty about the life and sayings of Jesus, and there is no real evidence that most of the 12 disciples even existed either.

[darya]

I think he was ethical dominant NF (in some manifestations Fe, in others Fi), E2, so I'd rule IEI out.

[dot]

Let me clarify what i meant previously. I'm less interested in Jesus as a human being, and more interested in the symbol. Let's say that we are typing the pagan god Thor. Nobody would be interested in the "historical Thor", or any such speculations, instead we look at the mythical figure and try to type him. So he fought against giants, great to know! That would maybe indicate ego, fine.

Same goes for Jesus, I would like to type him purely as a mythological being, a symbol that points at something psychological. Detached from the historical context. So then one uses the kind of jungian approach that Bertrand suggested and argue that he is every type, or transcends type. Obviously gods (archetypes) are not human, they don't follow human laws, so it's possible.

But not all gods transcend type. Thor doesn't. But it could be argued that Jesus does. But it depends on the approach one takes. I understand your NF typing totally.

It has nothing to do with being an atheist or believer. More about the connection of mythological projection to psychology.

So my approach was that I am typing a fictional character, but one that is archetypal.

Yes but since I do not want to do that/ don't really care, I don't think this whole 'discussion' applies to me. I am solely interested in the human Jesus, if he even existed. Especially since I believe the writers of the bible aren't really reliable sources when it comes to accuracy of the words spoken by Jesus. So yeah, my guess for him as a human being is either EII or IEI, can't add anything else. Might be wrong or not, just added my two cents earlier.
In a more abstract way he could've indeed been every type and none, which does sound very mystical yes.

[Tallmo]

Yes but since I do not want to do that/ don't really care, I don't think this whole 'discussion' applies to me. I am solely interested in the human Jesus, if he even existed. Especially since I believe the writers of the bible aren't really reliable sources when it comes to accuracy of the words spoken by Jesus. So yeah, my guess for him as a human being is either EII or IEI, can't add anything else. Might be wrong or not, just added my two cents earlier.
In a more abstract way he could've indeed been every type and none, which does sound very mystical yes.

Yes, and that's of course a good approach too. Typing a historical person. Although very challanging.

Yes, it sounds mystical that he could be every type. But fictional characters are often mystical

[Tallmo]

Great stuff, thanks

They don't call it the new testament (NT) for nothing.

Spooky!

Edit: I guess the point I am trying to make is there is nothing particularly NT-ish about a man who was born a saviour, whose mission was to show that love is the answer and to willingly die for the sins of humanity. He also hung out with the lowest of the low and preached that the meek shall inherit the earth. Not very Se valuing really but that is not a strong argument. I don't really disagree with that sentiment, in essence. When we are all gone what will be left.

If I actually look at experience then I think this kind of radical philanthropy sounds ILE to me. ILEs often adopt an idea or philosphy on what's moral. They don't like to evaluate case-by-case. ILEs can be very focused on morality because they are so sensitive to it (fi polr). But they like to solve it by philosophy.

Edit: My favorite author of, alleged, Jesus sayings is the gospel of Thomas which comes off very Ni/Se, to me.

I agree. And it's great.

I actually like @Bertrand's perspective.

I've been thinking about this for awhile. I think its possible to challenge @Bertrands perspecitve. A mythical character is a projection of a psychological attitude. All gods are, even Jesus. But he can't be "everything". It's possible that Bertrand pushes the psychologization a little too far. Because Jesus is a certain attitude he can have a type on the mythical level. A type that works as a symbol for what he represents. Even though a type is definitely a one-sidedness in real life, then on a mythical level a certain type might symbolize the integration of opposites. Lets say that EII would symbolize that, for arguments sake.

@Bertrand said this as an argument against Jesus having a type:

Type is itself a differentiation, a breakdown of unification.

Yes, but Jesus is a myth and his type is symbolic.

Hope I was able to explain what I meant.

[Bertrand]

@Tallmo

Jung talks about that, where Jesus is both a symbol of unification in a cultural manifestation, he also inevitably provokes a counter stroke in the form of the anti christ, because as you said there is one sided-ness to everything as a product of human projection. Thus God, Jesus, etc are both metaphysical ideals but also "real" types inasmuch as there are humans perceiving them and thus loaded with projections from both the collective unconscious and the individual unconscious. This is sort of how dogma took over as primary vs secondary as time went on and Christianity became more a set of laws and "facts." Ultimately the counter stroke seems to have been the present age of scientism, where that dogma and all dogma like it are rejected. Meanwhile the underlying "meaning" of the unification aspect of Christ (the metaphysical principle) was worn down and lost, precisely by the people that wanted to "enforce" it. Now "non-believers" aren't exactly the one's responsible for the downfall of the ideal, even though they are its most vocal opponents--rather they are just perceiving the failure of Christ to live up to his promises in the psychological sphere [1] and are reacting accordingly. In the same way Christ's underlying message is still true, its just that his "personality" dominated for too long; but the underlying message needs to be rescued or transformed into something "living" in the hearts of new generations for humanity to progress and not fall into a neurotic state. Jung says things like the major conflicts of the 20th century were a product of, as Nietzsche said, the "death of God" in this sense

for what it's worth I've seen Jesus in the sense we're talking about been typed EII

[1] a criticism I and most people have is something like "if God is real why don't we see it in the lives of those who profess him?"--this is fundamentally the awareness that he exists as a symbol of unification (much like a mandala) and nowadays "christians" are some of the most one-sided and differentiated points of view out there--the complete opposite of what they should be. From my current point of view then "true" Christians are those who walk in the "spirit of Christ" which is the superordinate concept of unity, not the concrete second order assumptions of dogma. This is completely backwards from what you'll get in a mordern church, which also means some of the truest Christians in my mind reject the church and all its dogma for precisely this reason (I'm not saying they have to, but rather it is a way to conceptualize "good people" making it to "heaven" without participating in literal church-going). These are also the people best suited to reach those who unconsciously reject the implicit falsehood in contemporary Christianity, but also who throw out much of the baby with the bathwater (ENTps, and other types for whom the focus tends to be on constructing a "correct dogma" and they smell a rat in "christian" instantiations, but who also lack the ethics to devise a true alternative, instead they fall into relatively naive theories about ethics--those good hearted but fatally unsophisticated forms of paganism would be like Carl Sagan et all). the idea of these types being that if we do away with religion suddenly everyone will behave, which seems to really be saying something like if we can do away with the "anti-christ" which has essentially consumed the world (anti christ as anti logos--truth), in other words if we can do away with spirit of untruth in all its forms, one of which is contemporary dogmatic christianity, we will be better off, which is absolutely true; but they fail to see that while scientism may react appropriately against one form of untruth (this is the merit of the logical positivist position done correctly) it is itself subsumed by the same pernicious untruth on another level, which is to say untruth will manifest on every available occasion thus religion is not the enemy but merely an opportunity for untruth to arise, just like science is.

What is really needed then is an ethical breakthrough on the level of Jesus in the 1st century, to symbolize the unification of these opposites in order to stop the shallow infighting and focus on the real problem. Jung's genius was to set the stage for this. The philosopher Heidegger also seems to have realized his own preparatory role in things by describing the issue in a different yet likewise productive way. the philosopher Sam Harris is the pseudo philosophical equivalent to Heidegger who describes things in the exact opposite way: a shallow reductive restatement of untruth, a statement of dogma that thinks it cant be guilty of what it accuses others of by virtue of the fact its aware of the fault in others. Sam Harris hasn't even learned the lesson of Christ "spec in your neighbor's eye" yet he misinterprets his running behind as lapping the field. in this way Sam and many others are neo pagans not post christians [2]. but i consider the hope of western civilization to be in Christ

[2] in a psychological sense, not a historical one, as they are both historically speaking "post-christian." another good contrast is Gabriel Marcel (Christian) v Albert Camus (Pagan, albeit a sophisticated one)

[The Reality Denialist]

Hahahaha

Not true?

[Pallas]

If we're going to VI Jesus, most Jesus pictures are the Vitruvian Man, which is da Vinci. So at least now we know da Vinci is an Ni-dom?

Giving Jesus a type just makes that type God if you believe Christianity and a terrible type if you hate it, so I wouldn't do that.

[Pallas]

...Jung's genius was to set the stage for this. The philosopher Heidegger also seems to have realized his own preparatory role in things by describing the issue in a different yet likewise productive way. the philosopher Sam Harris is the pseudo philosophical equivalent to Heidegger who describes things in the exact opposite way: a shallow reductive restatement of untruth, a statement of dogma that thinks it cant be guilty of what it accuses others of by virtue of the fact its aware of the fault in others. Sam Harris hasn't even learned the lesson of Christ "spec in your neighbor's eye" yet he misinterprets his running behind as lapping the field. in this way Sam and many others are neo pagans not post christians [2]. but i consider the hope of western civilization to be in Christ

[2] in a psychological sense, not a historical one, as they are both historically speaking "post-christian." another good contrast is Gabriel Marcel (Christian) v Albert Camus (Pagan, albeit a sophisticated one)

Bertrand: hates Beta Quadra, loves actual Nazis

[Bertrand]

do v2 rockets not fly

when I speak of Christ as hope for the future I mean the Christ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[Tallmo]

@Bertrand. I've read Jung, but I'm not yet familiar with everything you write. But about Jesus type: Jesus can be said to have a type, since he is a mythological figure in a certain setting, with a personality. He has a life story etc. One simply studies the myth and then concludes what his type is. You can simply choose a type for him that you think symbolizes unification. Then you have it.

To say that Jesus doesn't have a type, or is all types, would be strange, because it disregards facts of the myth.

First I agreed with you, but now I realize that we have to look at the myth and keep it separate from the psychological level.

There are lots of symbols of unification. And in this case it got projected into the life story of a middle eastern prophet, with a personality and life story. And also a type that fits his misson.

EDIT: Basically, I don't think we need to interpret the myth or psychologize it in order to type Jesus. We should trust that everything is in the myth. For example, Jesus' philantrophy is symbolic, but we don't need to understand that, we can take it at face value, and assign a type that fits a philantropist if we want to. Then the myth stays intact and can then later be brought to the psychological level if we want to psychologize. But we don't need that for typing him.

[Tallmo]

Ok, thanks for this post. Now, I've had time to chew on this.

I am familiar with Jungs criticism of Christianity, and I basically agree on what you say: The living myth is dead and has been repalced with dogma. The real myth is misunderstood both by "Christians" and Atheists.

Some comments:

I am kindof ok with dogma nowadays, because I take it as immidiate psychological truth. In the town where I live some religious people were out in the streets with loudspeaker preaching about how humans haven't evolved "from monkeys", instead we are "created by God and are all his children". Makes totally sense to me if I take it as an immidiate symbolic truth. I don't even have to take it as an "idea" or anything "intellectual". But yes, they probably take it too literally.

I read somewhere that Jung identified Anti-Christ as "ideology". I thought that was a great analysis, really a great contrast to the "way, life, truth". And how hard it can be to find. Because many people follow Anti-Christ and live by ideology, instead of fulfilling their unique destiny. Ideology is seductive, especially ideologies that preach good values, humanism, the wellfare state etc (in my country). That really shows how hard it is to recognize AntiChrist when he appears.

The problem with Christianity seems to be that it was introduced to pagan peoples in Europe and elsewhere. People who didn't have the level of spiritual maturity needed. And also that the myth itself is incomplete because it doesn't deal with the dark side. We never got to know what Christ did when he was dead for 3 days. Other myths go through this stage in detail though, for example folk tales.

Individuation has been suggested as a myth for modern man. Of course its not just a myth but a psychological process, but it seem like it can be a myth also.

But what is the true mythology for the individual? It depends on his level of maturity. For young people it is heros, they need it to manifest consciousness. For many older people too.

But yeah, as I probably said earlier, my point was that on the level of the myth everything is symbolic, even the possbile type that we assign. So it's perfectly ok that types are one-sided. The type that we choose for Jesus (based on the myth) can still symbolize unification.

@Tallmo

Jung talks about that, where Jesus is both a symbol of unification in a cultural manifestation, he also inevitably provokes a counter stroke in the form of the anti christ, because as you said there is one sided-ness to everything as a product of human projection. Thus God, Jesus, etc are both metaphysical ideals but also "real" types inasmuch as there are humans perceiving them and thus loaded with projections from both the collective unconscious and the individual unconscious. This is sort of how dogma took over as primary vs secondary as time went on and Christianity became more a set of laws and "facts." Ultimately the counter stroke seems to have been the present age of scientism, where that dogma and all dogma like it are rejected. Meanwhile the underlying "meaning" of the unification aspect of Christ (the metaphysical principle) was worn down and lost, precisely by the people that wanted to "enforce" it. Now "non-believers" aren't exactly the one's responsible for the downfall of the ideal, even though they are its most vocal opponents--rather they are just perceiving the failure of Christ to live up to his promises in the psychological sphere [1] and are reacting accordingly. In the same way Christ's underlying message is still true, its just that his "personality" dominated for too long; but the underlying message needs to be rescued or transformed into something "living" in the hearts of new generations for humanity to progress and not fall into a neurotic state. Jung says things like the major conflicts of the 20th century were a product of, as Nietzsche said, the "death of God" in this sense

for what it's worth I've seen Jesus in the sense we're talking about been typed EII

[1] a criticism I and most people have is something like "if God is real why don't we see it in the lives of those who profess him?"--this is fundamentally the awareness that he exists as a symbol of unification (much like a mandala) and nowadays "christians" are some of the most one-sided and differentiated points of view out there--the complete opposite of what they should be. From my current point of view then "true" Christians are those who walk in the "spirit of Christ" which is the superordinate concept of unity, not the concrete second order assumptions of dogma. This is completely backwards from what you'll get in a mordern church, which also means some of the truest Christians in my mind reject the church and all its dogma for precisely this reason (I'm not saying they have to, but rather it is a way to conceptualize "good people" making it to "heaven" without participating in literal church-going). These are also the people best suited to reach those who unconsciously reject the implicit falsehood in contemporary Christianity, but also who throw out much of the baby with the bathwater (ENTps, and other types for whom the focus tends to be on constructing a "correct dogma" and they smell a rat in "christian" instantiations, but who also lack the ethics to devise a true alternative, instead they fall into relatively naive theories about ethics--those good hearted but fatally unsophisticated forms of paganism would be like Carl Sagan et all). the idea of these types being that if we do away with religion suddenly everyone will behave, which seems to really be saying something like if we can do away with the "anti-christ" which has essentially consumed the world (anti christ as anti logos--truth), in other words if we can do away with spirit of untruth in all its forms, one of which is contemporary dogmatic christianity, we will be better off, which is absolutely true; but they fail to see that while scientism may react appropriately against one form of untruth (this is the merit of the logical positivist position done correctly) it is itself subsumed by the same pernicious untruth on another level, which is to say untruth will manifest on every available occasion thus religion is not the enemy but merely an opportunity for untruth to arise, just like science is.

What is really needed then is an ethical breakthrough on the level of Jesus in the 1st century, to symbolize the unification of these opposites in order to stop the shallow infighting and focus on the real problem. Jung's genius was to set the stage for this. The philosopher Heidegger also seems to have realized his own preparatory role in things by describing the issue in a different yet likewise productive way. the philosopher Sam Harris is the pseudo philosophical equivalent to Heidegger who describes things in the exact opposite way: a shallow reductive restatement of untruth, a statement of dogma that thinks it cant be guilty of what it accuses others of by virtue of the fact its aware of the fault in others. Sam Harris hasn't even learned the lesson of Christ "spec in your neighbor's eye" yet he misinterprets his running behind as lapping the field. in this way Sam and many others are neo pagans not post christians [2]. but i consider the hope of western civilization to be in Christ

[2] in a psychological sense, not a historical one, as they are both historically speaking "post-christian." another good contrast is Gabriel Marcel (Christian) v Albert Camus (Pagan, albeit a sophisticated one)

[Aylen]

Great stuff, thanks

Spooky!

If I actually look at experience then I think this kind of radical philanthropy sounds ILE to me. ILEs often adopt an idea or philosphy on what's moral. They don't like to evaluate case-by-case. ILEs can be very focused on morality because they are so sensitive to it (fi polr). But they like to solve it by philosophy.

I agree. And it's great.

I've been thinking about this for awhile. I think its possible to challenge @Bertrands perspecitve. A mythical character is a projection of a psychological attitude. All gods are, even Jesus. But he can't be "everything". It's possible that Bertrand pushes the psychologization a little too far. Because Jesus is a certain attitude he can have a type on the mythical level. A type that works as a symbol for what he represents. Even though a type is definitely a one-sidedness in real life, then on a mythical level a certain type might symbolize the integration of opposites. Lets say that EII would symbolize that, for arguments sake.

@Bertrand said this as an argument against Jesus having a type:

Yes, but Jesus is a myth and his type is symbolic.

Hope I was able to explain what I meant.

Yes, I can see what you mean. I actually responded to this post days ago. I wrote about 5 pages and then scrapped it. I have spoilered what I started with removing most of my original response as it was probably not something relatable to anyone who didn't have background knowledge on the concepts I had written about.

This thread actually kept me up while I was trying hard to sleep. I was bordering delirium as I wrote this. I do not do well on three hours sleep. Anyway, I was flooded with insights and images that I didn't remember the source of. It has been so long since I was studying this stuff in order to correlate.

I guess I should give a disclaimer that I have had a love/hate/detached view of Christianity and not to sound like a "know it all" I probably have studied a bit more about it and various other philosophies of religious, spiritual, and atheistic, perspectives than a lot of people here. I was also one of those angry atheists that considered believers less intelligent than non-believers.

I wasted time arguing my perspective to the point that I was disgusted at what I had become. I did not want to be angry anymore. I did not want to be a victim to Christianity anymore and I did not want to let my past cripple my future. If I were stuck in a cycle of anger and blame then I could not move forward because I was blocking the bigger picture. Feeling and thought were overriding my intuition. I see this reflected back to me through others so I guess I can experience more compassion for them. I have always mistrusted feeling over intuition and one of the reasons is that I see exactly how it can cloud judgement.

I probably have a few years on a some people here so I have had more time to form a broader worldview that is more holistic and dynamic. I do not call myself an atheist anymore. I used to think agnostic was best fit but that doesn't work either. I truly appreciate the symbolic implications and greater meanings underlying what various myths offer human beings. In my mind I correlate and store away bits and pieces until I find a suitable place for them but sometimes ideas go straight to my mental spam folder but are never completely deleted. Some day they may serve a purpose.

I thought to write out all these thoughts that were coalescing in my mind but instead I got out of bed and just let it all spill out to my EII sister, who is visiting me right now. She listened patiently with great interest and I noticed the shift in her energy as I let myself say what came to mind uncensored.

When I was done she just looked at me and said, "thank you". Then she threw her arms around me and hugged me a little longer than I was comfortable with because I started to feel self conscious about what I had just rambled to her about. She told me to write it and send to her because she wanted to read once I was able to put it into a more cohesive form. She knows me well enough that she kind of just gets what I am saying even when I miss pointing out key connecting details. She gets me without words.

I ran across this article when I came back to my room and did a search for an idea that came to mind. It is written by a Christian but if you can get past that I think he asks some interesting questions worth consideration. I know there are those who do believe in god here but there are probably as many who don't. The questions can be read symbolically or literally. I do not think there is a correct answer.

The question of Jesus’ identity has perplexed and fascinated us since he arrived on the scene 2,000 years ago. In our own day we seem to have a Jesus for everyone: Super-hero Jesus, Common Guy Jesus, Homosexual Jesus, Traditional Marriage Jesus, Democrat Jesus, Republican Jesus, Mormon Jesus, Oriental Jesus, and so on. Pick a cause or an agenda, and there is a Jesus waiting in the wings, ready to offer his support.[1] Why does everyone want a piece of Jesus, yet so often, not the whole? That is, why are we so ready to ascribe to Jesus the status of a great moral teacher, a teacher who we can use for our own personal or political agenda, yet we hesitate to call him Lord?

The claim that Jesus is just a great moral teacher is not a real option. He is a great moral teacher, but that is not all he is. If that is all he is, then he isn’t even that. As C. S. Lewis famously pointed out, an honest look at the life of Jesus reveals that either Jesus was God or he was a bad man.
“On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom ****** was the most sane and humble of men. There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions . . . . The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. . . . It is either lunacy or lies . . . [or] one turns to the Christian theory.”[2]

To think that Jesus was just a great moral teacher, and not God incarnate is wrong for at least the following two reasons:[3]

First, the factual mistake Jesus makes (on this suggestion) is cosmic, it is not a mere factual error, but a maximal factual error—believing himself (wrongly) to be the single, eternal source of all of life and the ground of all truth. What greater disparity could there be between belief and reality? The moral authority of Jesus’ teachings cannot be separated from his personhood and his self-identity (see e.g. Matt. 7:21–23 where, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus claims to be the Lord of history who will determine people’s eternal destiny, and Matt. 7:24–29 where he affirms that unless we build our lives on his teachings we will not hold up under the stress of life).

Second, merely propounding moral propositions is a necessary condition for one’s being a great moral teacher, but not a sufficient condition. Adolf ****** could propound moral propositions, my eight-year old son could too, but that would hardly make them a great moral teacher. In order to qualify as a great moral teacher, one’s character is relevant too, not just the content of his teachings. Someone with delusions as severe as those attributed to Jesus on this view would indicate a personality that is so disintegrated as to be disqualified from being considered a great moral teacher.

In the gospels, Jesus asks his disciples THE CRUCIAL QUESTION that all of us must answer:

“But what about you?” He asked, “Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15)

This question has reverberated ever since Jesus asked it. We must all respond to this question: What are we to make of Jesus? Let me suggest that whatever the answer, he did not allow the option of being just a great moral teacher.

You must choose: Either a bad man or God.

[1] As the Boston University professor of religion, Stephen Prothero puts it, “In the book of Genesis, God creates humans in His own image; in the United States, Americans have created Jesus, over and over, in theirs.” Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How The Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004), 298.

[2] C. S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?”, in Walter Hooper ed. God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 157, 158, 160.
[3] Both of these are from the excellent article by David Horner, “Aut Deus aut Malus Homo: A Defense of C. S. Lewis’s ‘Shocking Alternative’,” in C. S. Lewis as Philosopher, eds. David Baggett, Gary R. Habermas, and Jerry L. Walls (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008), chap. 4.

The bold parts stood out to me most. As we witness here, people respond based on how they internalize or externalize a concept. Subjectively, if you choose to confine the concept of Jesus to a narrow type it will be a projection of your own beliefs, values and understanding of socionics, enneagram, religion etc...

My answer to the question would be neither and both. Some people speak of the Christ consciousness which s just a way of viewing many archetypes, from various belief systems, unified. There are other words for it and in some cultures no word for it. A pretty common idea among various spiritual type teachings is there is no separation in the collective consciousness but the human mind has to separate and categorize in order to live in the physical form without being totally schizophrenic.

I have a pretty good idea what it is like to live without these boundaries between physical and nonphysical realities. It can be quite disconcerting if you don't understand it. Jesus is the personification of what that would look like in the flesh. An exemplar of the power of knowing thyself which transcends the confines of any philosophy or religious belief system.

I suggest to anyone who wants to seriously attempt to type a man that may, or may not, have existed to read all the translations of the Gospel of Thomas. If you can get through them all and still want to give him a sociotype then I would be interested to hear your conclusion. If you can get through it all and you experience something beyond archetypes, enneagram or sociotypes please pm me. I would really be interested to hear your conclusion. If you can't put it into words that is fine too. Just let me know.


I have read them all online and I own a copy of the Nag Hammadi library, that I have read. I feel like there is no cohesive understanding of the symbolism of Jesus and how it fits into the bigger picture. The same symbolism is found in many myths way older than Christianity. There is a series by Joseph Campbell called "The Power of Myth" and I feel it is a very good starting place for those who wish to understand how it all fits together. If pressed to give Joseph a type I would have to go with ILI.


If you want to go in the direction of giving Jesus a type based on a someone who may have possibly existed in real life I suggest reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Blood-Gr.../dp/0385338457

It was fascinating.

[Chae]

@Aylen Gotta love "Superhero Jesus" and "Homosexual Jesus" Big favorites.

[HERO]

I agree with the people who thought Jesus (or Yeshua) might have been ENTp (ILE):

ENTp:


- Anti-estabilishment/check

- Elongated figure/check

- Believes he's god/check

- Misunderstood genius/check

- Believes everyone must love everyone, because it's the only way someone will love him/check

Although, I wouldn't doubt that Jesus was ENTp. It kind of makes sense in the way Gandhi was ENTp.

Here are some videos:









Here are some links:

http://www.bibletimeprophecies.info/App.9C.html

http://www1.cbn.com/700club/beautifu...sonality-jesus

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/b...rn-where-when/

[WinnieW]

I agree with the people who thought Jesus (or Yeshua) might have been ENTp (ILE)

[sarcasm mode on]
Of course he was ILE, aka the inventor.

Turned water into wine

Invented instant wine powder / check

Feed a lot of people with only five breads and two fish

Invented food replicator / check

Comes back to life, after public crucifixion

Invented genetical cloning with accelerated biological growth
His clone was crucified / check

Clear evidence. Jesus was ILE.
[sarcasm mode off]

[wacey]

http://dailyinformator.com/bbc-doc-p...ref=dreamscape
@Subteigh

[The Reality Denialist]

Sounds kind of elaborate considering that this wasn't probably only messianic try out in that time period.

[wacey]

Sounds kind of elaborate considering that this wasn't probably only messianic try out in that time period.

It does sound far fetched, considering the distance to travel.

[Bertrand]

Jesus represents whatever you need to be to be a better person, he's there to increase the tension between you and yourself in such a way that you become all that you can be by resolving it. He represents a confrontation with the shadow in that sense, the moral overcoming of oneself in order to be more than all-too-human

[idontgiveaf]

He's a super mbti

[The Reality Denialist]

He's a super mbti

Carpenter therefore some .
SLI-EIE in a same package.

[wacey]

Carpenter therefore some .
SLI-EIE in a same package.

Totes.

[xerx]

There was an Outer Limits episode where they cloned Jesus using a DNA sample from the Shroud of Turin. The researcher running the project believed that the man depicted on the shroud had a 1 in 10 billion telekinetic mutation.

[edit here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8c3US6eeg]

Perhaps we could consider doing something similar for socionics purposes.

[idontgiveaf]

Carpenter therefore some .
SLI-EIE in a same package.

He's a master of every cognitive functions

[xerx]

VI PLEASE

[The Reality Denialist]

ENTp:


- Anti-estabilishment/check

- Elongated figure/check

- Believes he's god/check

- Misunderstood genius/check

- Believes everyone must love everyone, because it's the only way someone will love him/check

Apocalypse is coming. I'm happy to give that role away. Any takers?

[Delilah]

I can only guess that Jesus is a non-delta type, bcoz creating traditions is not a delta thing. His passion speaks more to an ethical idealist type, so maybe those who suggest beta NF are on to something.

[HERO]

I need to read all of the Bible (especially everything about Jesus/Yeshua). And there's a book called "Beautiful Outlaw" I need to read too.

http://www1.cbn.com/books/beautiful-...sonality-jesus

"He is the least religious person you will ever meet. That's the irony. That the man who hated religion most has become the most religious cartoon in the history of the world. Our images of Him now are just draped in the hyper-spiritual religious. Just the idea that Jesus is a person that you can know and relate to as intimately as you love and relate to your closest friends."

'The playfulness of Jesus [was surprising]. When you pause and you think, “OK, God created laughter, and He gave us the capacity for laughter.” But then you don't really see that when you read the Gospels; Jesus seems like a very serious person. You know the phrase “Jesus laughed” isn't ever used in the Gospels. So, most people walk away with the idea that Jesus is a pretty serious guy, pretty sour faced most of the time, pretty upset at what's going on around Him.

Then, we take the playfulness of creation and you say, “Wait a second, God created laughter. Maybe Jesus is playful. Maybe we just haven't found it in the Gospels.” And you read back through some of these stories such as the Emmaus Road or the miraculous catch of fish in John 21, and you go, “Oh, my goodness. Jesus is a very playful person with a great sense of humor.”'


'Reading the Gospels without the personality of Jesus is like watching television with the sound turned off. That's why so many of these passages seem so bizarre to us.

Like the Syrophoenician woman who comes to Him and says, “My daughter is possessed. Please help me.” Jesus says, “Sorry you're not suppose to give the food of the children to the dogs.” You read that story and you go, “Yikes!” He's calling her a dog. “You worthless scumbag. I don't have time for you.” But if you watch the interchange in the story, and you watch how Jesus responds to her, “You have amazing faith; you're daughter will be well.” So the story ends with Him with a smile on His face. We know that He is not racist. We know that He is not misogynistic. So what in the world is going on with that story? Well, if you insert the playfulness of Jesus, and you see it as a repartee between the two, she has a cunning reply. He smiles, and He says, “Well answered. Well answered.” Well, then you get this incredible encounter.

Same thing with the woman at the well. Same thing with the rich, young ruler. These stories that have troubled us in the past, if you recover the actual personality of Jesus in those stories and bring His heart into those stories, they take on a whole new meaning. They answer some pretty troubling questions for us.'


http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/gall...rsonality.aspx

[idontgiveaf]

I need to read all of the Bible (especially everything about Jesus/Yeshua). And there's a book called "Beautiful Outlaw" I need to read too.

http://www1.cbn.com/books/beautiful-...sonality-jesus

"He is the least religious person you will ever meet. That's the irony. That the man who hated religion most has become the most religious cartoon in the history of the world. Our images of Him now are just draped in the hyper-spiritual religious. Just the idea that Jesus is a person that you can know and relate to as intimately as you love and relate to your closest friends."

'The playfulness of Jesus [was surprising]. When you pause and you think, “OK, God created laughter, and He gave us the capacity for laughter.” But then you don't really see that when you read the Gospels; Jesus seems like a very serious person. You know the phrase “Jesus laughed” isn't ever used in the Gospels. So, most people walk away with the idea that Jesus is a pretty serious guy, pretty sour faced most of the time, pretty upset at what's going on around Him.

Then, we take the playfulness of creation and you say, “Wait a second, God created laughter. Maybe Jesus is playful. Maybe we just haven't found it in the Gospels.” And you read back through some of these stories such as the Emmaus Road or the miraculous catch of fish in John 21, and you go, “Oh, my goodness. Jesus is a very playful person with a great sense of humor.”'


'Reading the Gospels without the personality of Jesus is like watching television with the sound turned off. That's why so many of these passages seem so bizarre to us.

Like the Syrophoenician woman who comes to Him and says, “My daughter is possessed. Please help me.” Jesus says, “Sorry you're not suppose to give the food of the children to the dogs.” You read that story and you go, “Yikes!” He's calling her a dog. “You worthless scumbag. I don't have time for you.” But if you watch the interchange in the story, and you watch how Jesus responds to her, “You have amazing faith; you're daughter will be well.” So the story ends with Him with a smile on His face. We know that He is not racist. We know that He is not misogynistic. So what in the world is going on with that story? Well, if you insert the playfulness of Jesus, and you see it as a repartee between the two, she has a cunning reply. He smiles, and He says, “Well answered. Well answered.” Well, then you get this incredible encounter.

Same thing with the woman at the well. Same thing with the rich, young ruler. These stories that have troubled us in the past, if you recover the actual personality of Jesus in those stories and bring His heart into those stories, they take on a whole new meaning. They answer some pretty troubling questions for us.'


http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/gall...rsonality.aspx

True. Jesus can be an ENTP as well (how he trolls the stupid ESTJ priests) . But with great wisdom - ENFJ and love for the people.

So basically Jesus i believe is a super mbti xD no kidding.. He's the legit one. As he possess everything. He's without sin; meaning He is perfect. That's how a perfect human being can be - Jesus.

He is sober, He has a clear mind, He just know the right words to say, He is a great empath..

I think, reading the book of new testament, i think Jesus is really cool especially when how he argues intelligently with the "intelligent" people of their time.

Like you say, Jesus is not very religious.. As He is against of what the stupid greedy fake priests ways..
Actually, it's like Catholic Church ⛪ lol

Honestly Catholic Church is a great example of a flawed religion. I don't say all people who follow it are flawed, as everyone is flawed.. But honestly speaking, the Catholic Church itself is flawed, starting from the Vatican...

https://youtu.be/UXCxP1vpa-4

https://youtu.be/VH9f2aRTbKM

It's like in the time of Jesus, JESUS trolled the Vatican priests, but in return those greedy homo priests killed Jesus.

Well not trolled.. Because Jesus apparently is not doing anything about them... But those priests are intimidated by Jesus for unknown reasons - messiah, influencial poor carpenter..

Why would they just kill a man like Jesus if Jesus doesn't even possess any wealth??

Because those priests are Satanic they know, They know that Jesus is the Son of God.

Well that's my opinions are my own analysis of those situations

[xerx]

Consider this thread resurrected.

[Tallmo]

When typing Jesus one has to decide whom we are typing:

- The historical person(s) who walked around in Israel at this time preaching about God etc.

- The mythological figure Christ

The historical person could very well have been an ILI. Ni is the function of prophecy. Being able to read the unconscious of the current culture. The quotes from the NT also seem very Gamma NT.

The mythological figure Christ is maybe less interesting to type. It's a fictional character, so one can argue for or against many typings.

[SGF]

When typing Jesus one has to decide whom we are typing:

- The historical person(s) who walked around in Israel at this time preaching about God etc.

- The mythological figure Christ

The historical person could very well have been an ILI. Ni is the function of prophecy. Being able to read the unconscious of the current culture. The quotes from the NT also seem very Gamma NT.

The mythological figure Christ is maybe less interesting to type. It's a fictional character, so one can argue for or against many typings.

Jesus is the divine child archetype and that matures into the king archetype.



here is a weird thought, in any quadra the 4 types roughly correspond to the 4 archetypes:

In beta, imo:
LSI - The magician
IEI - The Lover
SLE - The Warrior
EIE - The King



So if we consider that Hesus was a revolutionary who spoke to the masses and converted them, it can only be an EIE from Beta.

I claim the Lord as one our own.

( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■) ... my logic is flawless.