Jesus Christ: LSE

[FreelancePoliceman]

Apologies for my long stretch of lessened activity on this forum. I'm sure I've been missed. I've missed you too, everyone. I can see that there's a lot of drama and a lot of anger running high at the moment, and in my humble opinion it's because none of you know how to type people. The greatest proof of this is that Jesus, the most famous personage in all history, is consistently typed an an introverted, intuitive, ethical type: namely, EII or IEI. I am very concerned, because he was quite obviously none of these things, and if as a community we can't even get his typing right, we have no chance of ever attaining typlogical or religious truth. I'm sure from the title of this thread you've already learnt what his real type was, but if you're willing to read further I shall explain to you its truth.

To begin with: since the most common typings of Jesus are aristocratic typings, I consider it unnecessary to devote much space to proving this. A distinction between believers and nonbelievers is a common theme in Jesus' parables ("two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left...[the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," and so on far more many times). Jesus' judgement of people is equated with membership in one or the other group, and he displays little interest in individual qualities independent of those required to attain membership in either group. Jesus also displays a preoccupation with authority and submission (a theme we shall return to later); the saved are those who submit to God. Such a philosophy is difficult to imagine as the product of Alphas or Gammas.

As for his being INFx though, let's look a little closer at his portrayal in the Gospels. First, we're told by Mark 6:3 that Jesus was a builder or carpenter, and by Luke 3:23 that Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Outside of an apparent interest in theology as a youth, he apparently devoted his life up until that point to his work. Of course an INFx construction worker or carpenter isn't impossible, but as anyone who's surveyed the fields of construction or carpentry will admit, these fields tend to attract S types, and his work for so long in this single field does provide an indication, if not yet conclusive, toward his being an S type. His interest in theology, similarly, supports a T type; personally, having attended a Jesuit university, all my theology professors were ST types, with one LII, and I have never known any F types to take much interest in the field. I believe my experience should resonate with anyone who's known theologians.

A more significant point against Jesus' being an ethical type is that he is not particularly warm, kind, or "ethical." Take, for example, his treatment of a Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.”But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.”Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Note that Jesus' first impulse is to regard the woman as a dog. It is only after the woman appeals to Jesus' weak point -- his suggestive function -- that he relents.

Additionally consider Jesus' curse of a fig tree (Mark 11):

On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it...As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.”

This account establishes Jesus as someone as someone quick to anger and inconsiderate of the capacity of the tree to bear fruit relative to the time of year -- indicating weak Ni; certainly not the 4D Ni of EII or IEI. Furthermore, anyone who's known an LSE can attest to the rapidity by which LSE become angry. And Jesus' anger was not the weak, ineffectual anger of 1D Se types; it terrified people. Take the prophetic vision of Revelation:

...the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb [i.e. Jesus], for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

Here it is important to note that, despite Jesus' proficiency with Se, he was not an Se-valuer. He displays a scornful attitude toward physical compulsion:

“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?"

In Luke 22, he instructs his apostles, for necessity's sake, to each buy a sword, but when not so compelled he is clear that he does not regard this as a good idea.

Jesus never threatens or intimidates anyone as a matter of course, only using his Se understanding of power dynamics (often combined with T proficiency) when necessary. Mark 11:

And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him,and they said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?”Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.” And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But shall we say, ‘From man’?”—they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John really was a prophet. So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

A similar incident occurs in the next chapter:

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denariusand let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

Mark does not bother explaining this answer, since its meaning is quite obvious given any amount of thought, but since many churches have twisted this into an endorsement of paying taxes: Jesus' point here is that, as the coins bear the image of Caesar, men bear the image of God. If the coin's image of Caesar means it belongs to Caesar, then that logic means humanity's image of God means that it -- Caesar included -- belongs to God -- and so how can anything belong to Caesar? The trap has been turned back on the Pharisees; if they follow the logic they've laid out to its conclusion, they themselves will be revealed as hypocrites. Realizing this, they cannot respond.

Jesus' distaste for Se precludes his being a Beta, but these responses are quite obviously not the speech of someone with 1-2D Se (especially not Se PoLR!) nor 1-2D T.

It is further important to note that Jesus was not a particularly innovative teacher (i.e. not an Ne ego):

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Jesus' call is nothing more than a return to tradition: quintessentially Delta. His message is clear: keep the [already extant] commandments. It may be objected that Jesus imposes additional commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, but these are nothing more than strengthened forms of the original commandments.

There is no indication his Ni is particularly developed either; his prophetic abilities are attributed to divine power, rather than any aptitude in the realm of pattern recognition. Again, the fig incident supports weak Ni, and though further evidence for this is difficult to find, this can easily be explained by the great extent to which divine knowledge of the future and of the will of God goes to mitigating the weaknesses of Ni PoLR.

Some more miscellaneous evidence in favor of an LSE type:

1) he was a rational type. He is consistent in his message and stated goals, and does not display significant variation in his character.
2) he was a negativist. He does not frame his message in a fashion that appeals to hope or optimism. He promises relief, yes -- from present and future suffering, suffering he promises his followers will face. He emphasizes the destruction and suffering of those who do not obey his message; the reward of those who do appears as only a contrast to the punishment of those who do not.
3) Jesus does not appear as an Fe valuer, especially not as an Fe ego. There is no indication of general emotional expressivity, and there is little trace of any sense of humor (his naming of Peter is sometimes regarded as a "pun" by people who wish to promote a certain image of Jesus but I would be astonished if this "pun" has made a single person smile, let alone laugh). These cannot have been prominent features in his personality. The only emotional investment we see is in close friendships with a limited number of people, and an affection for children.
4) That his message and purpose was ethical in nature does not mean he was an ethical type. LSEs are commonly stirred in directions of moral or spiritual reform, with strong ethical ideas they pursue rigidly. My own grandfather, an LSE, was a missionary. @DirectorAbbie is another example of an LSE like this. C.S. Lewis I would argue is another example.

In conclusion, having properly typed Jesus, I have begun to set the study of typology on its proper feet. Alas, man cannot live on bread alone, and therefore I require material support in my quest to bring true knowledge of type into the world. Given that I have seen what no one else has, apparently, ever seen, this posts stands as testament to my remarkable powers of insight, and I consequently propose that all followers of Gulenko redirect their loyalties to me as the superior teacher. Of course, as the greater teacher, I deserve greater support, but in my magnanimity I will begin my expected contribution where Gulenko has traditionally kept his: $120 USD, payable by cash, check, or sexual favors (conversion rate dependent on the attractiveness of the contributor).
@Poptart, @VewyScawwyNawcissist, and @one, my most trusted disciples, will be happy to answer any questions.

[Poptart]

Great post!! I always suspected that Jesus was LSE.

[chriscorey]

A million different perspectives of the BIBLE! Your opinion on the schizophrenic that wrote part of it is truly riveting.

[The Reality Denialist]

Historically speaking gospels arrived rather late, trade was "inherited" and so on.

Regardless of that I think that extroverted rational temperament (Ej) should fit in place in any case.


I have spent some time examining opinions of his existence. Some like to go to sources [obviously there is not a lot from that time in he first place] but some say that influence proved it well enough.

[Bethanyclaire]

Interesting. Yeah there’s always more room for tolerance on the forum. Be more like Jesus. I’m happy with LSE typing. I personally think the forum needs more balanced, and ultimately more scientific discussion. And that would happen naturally if the forum started to attract a wider variety of types. I try to find role models for all types as I know this is the healthiest way to think about types- they all have the potential to be good people.

[godslave]

Whatever his type was, its perception has been greatly influenced by christian iconography throughout the last 1800 years or so. There are countless movies which portray Jesus as Compassionate, Wise, Loving, Forgiving, Committed, Patient, Gentle, Humble to name a few attributes. This "Image" of Jesus has made its way in the collective unconscious. Jesus has become the Archetype of Saintliness.

LSE why not ? After all, there are a lot of EIIs attracted by the ecclesiastical lifestyle, a lot of priest and men of church are EIIs. It would make sense in a socionics way that LSEs particularly attract EIIs. However people would have a hard time believing that Paul the Apostle which some type as LSE and Jesus shared the same type precisely because an "Image" worth a thousand words.

[DEAD]

Explains why @Shazaam says he's going to hell

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't really care about his type, but I guess it would kinda explain why so many Delta ST cornfield hicks are so Jesus-obsessed. ((and yeah, I tend to clash with that type of person stereotypically speaking))

I always thought maybe Conflictors, like Supervisors- can have similar-ish thinking patterns so he also can be easily confused as IEI or EII that way. People have said I was like Jesus before. Anyways I think the whole morally judging somebody else thing is largely a Fi error so to speak, and I don't really trust a lot of it without hard evidence. And due to the widely varying opinions people gave me regarding the tainted-ness of my own soul. Usually it's a Republicunt trying to feel superior over other people. Yet I would trust my inner creep-o-meter in the moment for my own protection, sure.

[timber]

You convinced me.

I can see Mike Rowe, host of Dirty Jobs, as Jesus.

Opinionated, consistent, yet benevolent. A Carpenter who noticed the corruption inherent in the system of Rome. Seems parallel with what LSEs world view often is today.

Jesus is a Divine Mike Rowe.

[End]

I don't think Jesus himself could, can, or should be typed but Saul of Tarsus was almost certainly an LSE. My mother really likes that part of the mass (for good reason I'd argue). After all, your quote unquote identical "Gets it" as it were.

True to form, Christ literally had to appear before him before he realized how badly he had fucked up. Slaves to "accredited" sources they are. However, if they somehow come to see their previous sources as full of shit and this new one as being far better well...

Saul changed his name to Paul and switched from being the most effective prosecutors of the nascent church to a man who is, to this very day, seen as one of the most effective evangelists in history. His letters make up a good chunk of the New Testament for good reason. Also, he was one hell of a Charmer. The man did a lot of work in regards to smoothing out potential conflicts. De-escalation is a concept few get or can even apply if their gets set off and yet that's essentially what he's doing in many of those letters. He turned conflict into harmony.

Identify the truth, explain to the belligerent party how they're getting hung up over what is essentially semantics, and then bring them back into the fold. Sadly Satan is very good at exploiting our fallen nature and thus is able to do just that but towards an opposing end. I can bet you money most of the elites who currently rule over us all experienced a sick parody/simulacrum of what Paul did. They did not encounter Jesus on that day...

[Bethanyclaire]

It makes sense that Jesus was Delta- from what I remember of religion when I went to Catholic school..I mean it’s all about accepting that everyone is capable of good or evil, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in. We all need to depend on each other, all we have is each other. This is second nature to an IEI (at least to me) but LSEs question it more. An enlightened LSE probably comes across very kind and loving, even if simply through their work. I know a couple. Even before socionics, I recall meeting a very lovely, but lonely LSE and thought he was ‘one of the nicest people I’ve met’. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an IEI in Jesus’s life. Maybe IEI is simply God, his father..that inspires him. I think I inspire some LSEs.

[chriscorey]

I watch the History Channel. Apparently Jesus was a devout jew. And all this is ignored. I think Ti. The guys who wrote the bible were LSE.

[chriscorey]

What about the fact that no women wrote anything? What are we missing? Is history written by LSE men?

[FinderRudge]

What a different view on the Bible. I appreciate it. I think there are as many people as many opinions on the Bible, so I think there's nothing to argue about. It's the biggest book in the world, and we've also lost some parts of it. But, you know, maybe someone doesn't want us to see those "lost" parts, who knows. But you know, my friend from https://firstchurchlove.com/ told me a story. There was an experiment. Some mice were put into the bucket with water. They all died in about 30 mins, as far as I remember. This was the first group of mice. And then, the scientists put the second group of mice into the bucket full of water, but they removed them after 5 minutes so the mice could have some rest. Then they were put back into the water. And guess what? Mice spent 40 hours in the water, believing they would be saved. That's the power of faith. You can check this experiment on the Internet. I may have made a few mistakes about the numbers, but you can still understand the meaning.

[Dionysius The Return]

I talked to a friend once who suggested me the idea that Jesus was LSI, and it made a lot of sense.
I searched for Jesus type in Socionics and arrived here. Your post is good, however:

Building a well structured logical system, a hierarchical theleology, oriented towards submission and admiration, that's way more Beta ST than Delta ST. A Delta ST is oriented towards practicality, knowledge, tradition. Jesus broke with tradition. This points towards (Ti) questioning the current beliefs of culture (Te) and building a new paradigm of logic (The battling dynamics of Ti x Te - that's the definition of Carl Jung, and Socionics is alligned with it - Ti is dissecting systems and creating new theories, while Te is the current available external facts and knowledge). So, Jesus was what intellectually is typically classified as Ti, not Te.

His strong touch into creating parabolas, symbols and stories was his well developed "tertiary" Ni. It's not a characteristic of a Ne type. We could basically say Jesus was an LSI with a strong touch into Ni and feeling. A Dualized LSI, who built a mystic (Ni) system, which could be interpreted as quite moral, so, Fi Role fits. An Fe Ego, for example, or even an Fi Ego, would never build such a rigid logical system, of punishment and submission. Yes, that's typical of LSI, the admirer of rigid control and rigid systems. Independently if his supernatural powers were real or invented, or even if he really existed, the person who is described, and seems to really have existed, has all the evidences to which he was an LSI carpenter, who at 30 years of age matured his Ni and built his ministry starting with a small group of followers, very typical of an LSI, who is not particularly a great leader of masses. And the power of his powerful Ti logical system still lives to this day.

[Dionysius The Return]

An EIE or an IEI will maneuver inside an already functioning structure (Ti/Se weak/seeking), and rise to power from there, with alliances, influence, friendships and politics.

An LSI is more likely to build his own structure, and face the dominant structure (strong Se), starting with a small group.

[DEAD]

Technically, since Jesus is Lord, and the Lord made everything, couldn't Jesus be no types, all the types at once, or whatever one he pleases to be?

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Technically, since Jesus is Lord, and the Lord made everything, couldn't Jesus be no types, all the types at once, or whatever one he pleases to be?

thats beta NF

[Metamorph]

Technically, since Jesus is Lord, and the Lord made everything, couldn't Jesus be no types, all the types at once, or whatever one he pleases to be?

If people believed in Christianity they wouldn't be trying to type Jesus. (Well, except people who think Jesus didn't call himself God, but that view isn't generally considered Christianity. And Gulenko seems to think God is an EIE in any case.)

[Not A Communist Shill]

Jesus is difficult to analyse because it depends which Jesus you try to type.

I don't believe that Jesus was "God", so I can only analyse the Christian Jesus from how he is depicted in the New Testament (which is often inconsistent), combined with how Christians throughout history have typically depicted him (someone who claimed to be God).

I describe him here as a person who wrongly believed himself to be "God", but who also considered himself to have a human nature (a second identity, capable of doubt etc.). But in such context, it's difficult to say if Jesus as depicted was "Brave" or not. I could also try to describe him as a person who did not claim to be "God", who was misinterpreted (i.e. for example, he may in fact claimed that we all have "God" within us).

NOT Submissive, NOT Timid, Forceful, Assertive, Domineering, Confident, NOT Gullible, NOT Indecisive, Firm, Independent, NOT Cowardly, Enterprising, Bold, Decisive, NOT Shy, NOT Bashful, Assured, Clever, Knowledgeable, Outspoken, Demanding, NOT Silent, NOT Undemanding, Industrious, Analytical, Bossy, Alert, Purposeful, NOT Fearful, Brave, Courageous, NOT Tolerant, NOT Humble, Expressive, Self-disciplined, NOT Quiet, Rebellious, Conceited, NOT Modest, Energetic, NOT Reserved, Magnetic, Quarrelsome, Boastful, NOT Traditional, NOT Restrained, NOT Trustful, Steady, Talkative, NOT Conventional, NOT Easy-going, Distrustful, Sociable, NOT Unsociable, NOT Happy-go-lucky, Social, Reliable, Unconventional, NOT Carefree, Dependable, Bitter, Irritable, NOT Impulsive, Optimistic, NOT Cautious, NOT Reasonable, NOT Self-critical, NOT Cheerful, Reckless, NOT Relaxed, Genial, NOT Unexcitable, Grumpy, Helpful, Passionate, Moody, Excitable, Amiable, Negativistic, Mannerly, Friendly, NOT Unemotional, Warm, Compassionate, Affectionate, NOT Consistent, NOT Cold, Sensitive, Emotional, Cooperative, Sentimental, Naive.

[Metamorph]

Jesus is difficult to analyse because it depends which Jesus you try to type.

I don't believe that Jesus was "God", so I can only analyse the Christian Jesus from how he is depicted in the New Testament (which is often inconsistent), combined with how Christians throughout history have typically depicted him (someone who claimed to be God).

I describe him here as a person who wrongly believed himself to be "God", but who also considered himself to have a human nature (a second identity, capable of doubt etc.). But in such context, it's difficult to say if Jesus as depicted was "Brave" or not. I could also try to describe him as a person who did not claim to be "God", who was misinterpreted (i.e. for example, he may in fact claimed that we all have "God" within us).

NOT Submissive, NOT Timid, Forceful, Assertive, Domineering, Confident, NOT Gullible, NOT Indecisive, Firm, Independent, NOT Cowardly, Enterprising, Bold, Decisive, NOT Shy, NOT Bashful, Assured, Clever, Knowledgeable, Outspoken, Demanding, NOT Silent, NOT Undemanding, Industrious, Analytical, Bossy, Alert, Purposeful, NOT Fearful, Brave, Courageous, NOT Tolerant, NOT Humble, Expressive, Self-disciplined, NOT Quiet, Rebellious, Conceited, NOT Modest, Energetic, NOT Reserved, Magnetic, Quarrelsome, Boastful, NOT Traditional, NOT Restrained, NOT Trustful, Steady, Talkative, NOT Conventional, NOT Easy-going, Distrustful, Sociable, NOT Unsociable, NOT Happy-go-lucky, Social, Reliable, Unconventional, NOT Carefree, Dependable, Bitter, Irritable, NOT Impulsive, Optimistic, NOT Cautious, NOT Reasonable, NOT Self-critical, NOT Cheerful, Reckless, NOT Relaxed, Genial, NOT Unexcitable, Grumpy, Helpful, Passionate, Moody, Excitable, Amiable, Negativistic, Mannerly, Friendly, NOT Unemotional, Warm, Compassionate, Affectionate, NOT Consistent, NOT Cold, Sensitive, Emotional, Cooperative, Sentimental, Naive.

What about we just type all the Spanish people named Jesus?

[DEAD]

thats beta NF

What? xD We're typing half-joking statements now?

If people believed in Christianity they wouldn't be trying to type Jesus. (Well, except people who think Jesus didn't call himself God, but that view isn't generally considered Christianity. And Gulenko seems to think God is an EIE in any case.)

Yes, it can't be considered Christianity (well, proper Christianity anyway) because Jesus IS LORD and there is no way around that. I just find it kind of amusing that people are typing God, and typing my statements about typing God. Which God is Gulenko typing EIE, or is it the general concept of a God he is typing? Same with anyone else who tries to type God, not based off the Bible alone. They are two different concepts, to me. The almighty, and an actual God who embodies than concept.

[Metamorph]

Yes, it can't be considered Christianity (well, proper Christianity anyway) because Jesus IS LORD and there is no way around that. I just find it kind of amusing that people are typing God, and typing my statements about typing God. Which God is Gulenko typing EIE, or is it the general concept of a God he is typing? Same with anyone else who tries to type God, not based off the Bible alone. They are two different concepts, to me. The almighty, and an actual God who embodies than concept.

...I mean, lots of people would dispute that Jesus is God while still claiming Jesus existed. This thread is just going to turn into a debate on theology instead of on typing Jesus. Well, that's not surprising at all.

Gulenko didn't so much type God from the Bible EIE as say it's the prototype of all human thought processes and type many religious figures such as Jesus EIE though. However, the implication is clear enough.

[Dionysius The Return]

Even if Jesus came to the Earth as a God, he was born in a human body, therefore, he had a type, since every human body has a type.

[Metamorph]

Even if Jesus came to the Earth as a God, he was born in a human body, therefore, he had a type, since every human body has a type.

Not necessarily. Additionally, it's usually human minds that are considered to have types, not human bodies (which doesn't necessarily imply Cartesian dualism if you believe in substrate independence.) But this is really looking like a counterargument for the mainstream Christian view that Jesus is the only-begotten son of God and the second person of a trinity.

On a completely different topic, I feel like this thread's title was a missed opportunity to call it Jesus Christ: Director (the socionics type name for LSE.)

[Rusal]

Only maybe passable attempt to type J. should use just Q source.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Of course it figures that Holier-Than-Thou Deltards would type the Savior of all humanity in their own quadra, but the real Jesus is actually a pervy and evil EIE. Fooled you all.

Seriously though, Jesus is typeless. That's like... the entire point. Technically, I guess he's a very healthy e9 more than anything - as he likes to be peaceful and at 'one with humanity' but He isn't afraid to say "That pissed me off and was immoral. Stop it" either and strike you/me/us with a Lightning Bolt if we're misbehaving either. ((Whereas average/unhealthy 9s just say 'That's okay' and try to overly minimize or sugar-coat immorality.))

The lightning spell isn't as powerful as God's Thundaza, but is still probably on the Thundaja level.

Jesus doesn't have a PoLR like me or you have. He is without sin. You can't cast Esuna on Blind people being Se PolR. You'd be too weak and sqeam-ish like some scaredy cat nerd. Jesus' healing touch was physical as it was spiritual- he was literally the Creator Creating itself.... so he was beyond physical but that doesn't mean he wasn't physical. Thinking the root chakra isn't important is a mis-use of spirituality and often a fatal error.

You punch a normal Se polr person and they easily fall over, even easier than 1D Se but valued ppl do. You try to punch the real Jesus, and he easily evades the blow (the words EVADE come on the screen), and then takes u out easily with a swift blow of his own. But he isn't like some criminal SLE thug either. It wouldn't give him a lot of arrogance or 'confidence' that he was able to do that either. He would also love and forgive you, something we all know Fi polrs are incapable of.

((Yes Jesus grimdarkishly died on the cross, but he also allowed this to happen so normal Fallen Imps like me and u can be Saved. He loved Goyim Fallen Imps as much as he loved Wealthy Elite ppl- probably more, considering what the Bible says about going to heaven and being rich.... It was the only way to make the redemption spell worth it. You aren't worthy of being redeemed, yet you ARE worthy of being redeemed, because Jesus willed it.))

Jesus is greater than u or me. I love Jesus. <3

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Humanity thinking they know who can be saved and who doesn't- look around at this sick and fallen world. They clearly don't know. They think they can get it right. They obviously can't. If they gotten it right, think of how many ppl could be saved by all those sick and twisted sexual deviants by releasing them too early? Now I know u may think I'm a sick and twisted deviant too- but I'm not. My heart WEEPS for the hurt and innocent children.

Regina Hurt thought she knew the answers too- but whoopsie. The boy she gave the home visit too just tried to stab somebody and got 5 years in prison. I don't think you are as righteous as you think. Ms. Cunt.

ppl probably thought they should be forgiving like God - but really the correct answer was to kill or imprison them forever so they couldn't hurt another innocent child EVER AGAIN!!! God is kind and loving, but he's also Wrathful and Strict when He Needs to Be. PRAISE JESUS AND GOD.

Then likewise, a normal gay couple just wanted to be intimate with each other in private- yet humanity was WRATHFUL to them instead and tried to ban it legally. And treated them poorly by making love and intimacy evil and wrong.

Humans are backwards are fallen. We are often WRATHFUL when we should be kind and merciful, and we're often kind and merciful when we need to cast Holy on Dahmer. We don't know what we're doing. We think we are ethical and righteous and can judge pedos from non pedos or know who can be saved and who can't- but we need to leave that up to Jesus! And that person's personal relationship with Jesus. We clearly do not know! And should stop pretending we know, unless maybe of course you have a lot of evidence that you know. But yeah.

Praise Gaslightza! Praise Jesus! and Praise me, most of all! There's nothing wrong with a bit of self confidence!

[Metamorph]

Here's a thought. He said things despite the prevailing culture at the time, breaking social norms. He wasn't generally disrespectful or unethical to specific people, but rather society as a whole.

I think that Jesus was actually Fe PoLR, probably ILI. Later, when he was being more commander-like, he was probably broadcasting Se. When he talked to the Canaanite woman, he only helped her because she showed that he was a good person according to the rules that he had to or was willing to follow (he's obligated to help people who are loyal to God).

However, I think that Christianity isn't a Gamma creation. The themes in it don't seem to be Gamma. I don't know much about the bible, so I wouldn't take this conclusion too seriously.

Edit: To support my viewpoint that he's Fe PoLR, and probably ILI, I would like to point out that Jesus got extremely angry and started hitting Jewish priests when he saw corruption in a temple. According to Filatova, ILI's will sometimes lose control of their emotions and enter a state of "madness" where they break furniture. Isn't that what Jesus basically did by becoming violent against the priests?

This could also be support for SLI because SLI's can also enter an angry, violent state due to their Fe vulnerability.

This post has been edited in general.

...That's the objectively correct response, though.

[Bethanyclaire]

I’m thinking Jesus is ILI now..but I think we share some moral values with our supervision type with same thinking/feeling function. But I think Mary music be IEI or Jesus wouldn’t have been so nice. Maybe making Jesus look like LSE

there is an ILI at work who thinks he is God I swear- can’t be a coincidence lol

[Bethanyclaire]

Maybe EIE. SEIs seem to have a thing about Jesus in the same way I have a thing about ESEs. Plus EIEs are nice but unrealistic. Like they are right to be positive and ambitious but Christianity is imperfect in that it is not harsh enough on the bad people. So having a pure heart will get the innocent ones in trouble sometimes coz they will be distracted by being good and not notice how much bad there is.

plus Christianity has a thing about guilt and EIEs have a problem with guilt. I remember being in a group therapy session and an EIE was talking about how ashamed she was about things- and I dumbly point out ‘that’s guilt, you’re feeling guilty’. I think she said shame, whatever she said what she really meant was that she couldn’t process guilty feelings. Tbh I use the word ‘guilty’ a lot myself but I did grow up with some Catholicism.

Christianity kinda says everyone has shame, so we should love everyone. But some people have guilt more than shame, even if they’re nice, and they end up being too forgiving. So maybe Jesus was trying to say that we should not feel guilty, like EIEs don’t really, we should help each other escape the guilty feelings. Of course in the wrong hands that’s unhelpful. Some need to work through shame.

[Sol]

I did not payed much of attention to texts, so it's a shallow look. As exists critical lack of trusty data in general, so other approaches would be similarly doubtful anyway.

To suppose types without a video is doubtful approach.
About that Jesus is known not much. Lived too long ago. The degree of distortions is high as he was made mythological, what is seen by fairytale claims about not have a farther, body resurection and other.
So it's a like to type characters of fiction books.

It's possibly to speculate by his occupation, to assume him as having high influence by new ideas there.
Those who attract people by talking about religions are expected to have F types. It's more emotional than logical.
Religions are more about imagination with what N types deal better. But this is lesser linked with his type in case he got ideas externally, what most possibly was the case. There is nothing complex from imagination side in New Testament and not much of new "dreaming", while exist links to Judaism and existing traditions.
So from the side of skills the possibility of F is higher than other types. It's possibly to assume N, but lesser.

With his functional values is lesser clear. Most probably he said not originally own ideas but taken from outside. Those where not new, more a mix of Judaism and radical humanistic pacifism (should exist in India still). This arises the possibility to accept ideas closer to not own functional values. Also, if a human has a function as strong - he has initial skills to convince in ideas for both function's sides, especially when got ideas externally and hence studed skills to stransfer them.
New Testament seems is closer to Fi value. Emotions of unconditional love is personal (Fi). Fe would be to accept in the degree a human is decent and follows rules, to what "Old Testament" was closer. New Testament was supposed as partial opposing to "Old Testament" and this is among places. But if to accept the possibility of F type - this adds not much to his own value predisposition, taken the arguments above. While besides religious ideas, we don't know enough about his common life behavior to assume functional value for F.
With Ne/Ni value is hard to decide by ideas. Religions itself is Ni, not Ne - there is much of this. While pacifism and lack of individual property valuing is hard to link with Se value.

Resume
F is the only trait which has acceptable basis to be supposed. For other is needed trusty biography data beyond wide known.

[Beautiful sky]

Well he makes his own prediction that he will be hung on the cross so Te ?

[rizz]

Jesus Pesus. He's not my saviour. Some random jewish dude that hung himself on a fucking cross. What a loser. Also, he looked like a trans girl with an ugly beard. Ew.

[anotherperson]

yeah actually that makes sense. because jesus valued Fi right? i remember something about "dont look at the speck in your brother's eye when you got a big log in your own". so he cant be EIE . . . although i dont have a clear picture of what jesus did bc he did a lot (at least according to the bible)

[Bethanyclaire]

yeah actually that makes sense. because jesus valued Fi right? i remember something about "dont look at the speck in your brother's eye when you got a big log in your own". so he cant be EIE . . . although i dont have a clear picture of what jesus did bc he did a lot (at least according to the bible)

yh but he could be an EIE who’s trying not to be an EIE maybe

[SacredKnowing]

@FreelancePoliceman

You are not personally responsible for typing Jesus as the same type as Sonic the Hedgehog. You are blameless, because you were using pure logic, and logic is only as good as the starting presuppositions fed into it.

Look at this video of the popular protestant hymn "In Christ Alone" by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. See that poster of Sonic in the background? Teenage Christian girls believe exactly what they're taught, and she left up the poster of Sonic because someone taught her that Jesus is the same type of person as Sonic (if someone didn't teach her that, then she would have recognized it as extremely inappropriate and have at least covered it or took it down when she was producing the video).

Now here is the unresolved mystery for you to solve: whodunnit? Who is responsible for teaching millions of Christian boys and girls that Jesus is the same type of person as Sonic the Hedgehog?

[SacredKnowing]

[deleted]

I forgot LII is Merry and ILI is Serious. But as gamma quadra... no I am serious (Titus 2:12). You have a cold case that needs to be solved: the Missing Case of Sonic the False Messiah.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

He was a leader who had a clear vision of his mission and purpose. He organized his followers and instructed them on how to spread his message. He was not afraid to challenge the authorities and confront the hypocrisy of the religious establishment. He used logic and reason to debate with his opponents and persuade his audience. He also performed miracles that demonstrated his power and authority over nature. These could be seen as signs of extroverted thinking.

He was also a person who had a deep connection to his inner self and his spiritual heritage. He often withdrew from the crowds to pray and meditate in solitude. He respected the laws and customs of his culture and religion. These could be seen as signs of introverted sensing.

LSEs are pragmatic, hands-on, solution-oriented, and decisive individuals who value logic, efficiency, productivity, and results. They also value safety, comfort, leisure, aesthetics, and tradition. They are often leaders who have a clear vision of their goals and organize others to achieve them. They are not afraid to challenge the status quo and confront problems head-on. They use reason and facts to support their arguments and persuade others. They also enjoy physical activities and recreation that involve their senses such as "going out into the wilderness" with a group of men.

Carpentry is a profession that requires practical skills, technical knowledge, physical strength, and artistic sense. Carpenters are responsible for designing, building, repairing, and installing various structures and objects made of wood or other materials. They have to follow plans, specifications, and codes, as well as use tools, machines, and measurements. They also have to work with clients, contractors, and suppliers, and manage their time, budget, and resources.

LSEs are said to be good at working with their hands and using their senses to create tangible results. They are also good at organizing and managing projects and people, and applying logic and efficiency to their work. They value quality, craftsmanship, and functionality over abstract or theoretical concepts. They also enjoy expressing their aesthetic taste and personal style through their work.

Jesus may have also used his carpentry skills as a metaphor or a tool for his ministry, such as when he said “I am the door” or “I will build my church”. He may have also transcended the limitations or expectations of his profession by demonstrating his divine nature and authority through his miracles and teachings.

[Beautiful sky]

There are a few things which might speak clearly against LSE;

He was Jewish so he did have Jewish values and if he were LSE he would typically blend in with his culture and cultural expectations. If in his culture it was taught that certain people were unclean or whatever he would repeat these values.

He didn’t.

He stood against many Jewish cultural and religious beliefs of the time in his own society.

Idk I have strong opinions about him NOT being LSE

He seems to be EII for the most part. He sets the new moral code for his society against all odds that it will be accepted and he doesn’t waiver in his beliefs unlike LSE who would typically swing with external wind so to say.