What tempermant is Christ?


Does he have a specific tempermant?

I think there are four, right?


I picture Him as serious, kind, solemn, reflective, articulate, sincere, and engaging. I actually try to live in accordance with my impression of Him, e.g., imitate Him, as best I can.


Judging from some of the clues that we have in scripture.

  1. Disappears at the age of 12. – He’s an extravert and self-confident.

  2. Children run after him. – He’s nurturing and non-threatening, probably smiles a great deal and laughs too. Tells funny stories and is playful.

  3. Women talk freely with him in a culture where this was not common behaviour. – He’s engaging and not a macho man, but more of a gentle kind of guy.

  4. His apostles were all young men. John was an adolescent. – He’s energetic and an eloquent speaker. Probably a good conversationalist too.

  5. He teaches in parables. – Has a good imagination and is a good story teller. He has innate teaching skills, because his hearers remember his stories almot 50 years later.

  6. The sick flock to him. – Besies a miracle worker, he’s not intimidating, just the opposite. He exudes compassion and openness.

  7. The scribes and pharisees love to debate with him. – He’s assertive and a fast thinker, probably very stable, does not lose his cool in the heat of a debate. When he tells people off, it’s more a matter-of-fact, not a loss of emotional control.

  8. He said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” – has strong sense of civic and religious duty and does not confuse them or allow others to confuse the issues. He’s very intelligent.

  9. His passion took hours from the arrest to the death. – He was an athletic man with a strong physical constitution.

Sounds like the perfect temperament to me.

JR :slight_smile:


I’d add awesome-the crowds were awed by His authoritative teachings-and humble-He lowered Himself and became a servant to us, living, suffering, and finally dying by our hands for our sake.


It seems a common practice these days among many to use the word “Christ” as if it is the name of Jesus, or Iesua. or Iasu, however it might have been spelled or pronounced in the original. In asking a question like this it might be useful to remember that the word “Christ” is a Greek word that was used to translate the Hebrew word “messiah.” It came into use and replaced “haeland” (healer) in Old English as a discriptor of Jesus more commonly used at that time, and wasn’t even capitalized until sometime in the 17th century. What I’m suggesting is that it might be more appropriate to ask what temperament “Jesus” might have had.

We might also remember that though we as persons seem to have a generally catagorizable temperament, it is the nature of a mature person to evoke to some degree whatever temperament is appropriate to a situation. Moreover, very advanced or mature individuals, being informed in their awareness by higher states of understanding, tend, as far as I can gather, to be simply present to what is happening at the moment and act appropriately for the highest good of the situation. I don’t know if that falls into the catagory of a temperament as it is commonly understood.


One of the most wonderful books that we read in theology about Jesus was written by Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer’s work is very important, because he doesn’t set out to prove that Jesus is God or even a prophet. He simply sets out to study the man.

When you take away the theology and you simply look at the historical figure you get a very good understanding of his personality. You can see the humanity that his contemporaries saw.

It’s a good work for anyone who is interested in the personality of Jesus, whether you’re a Catholic or an atheist.

If you want to bring in the Christology of it all, then you may want to read Dermot Lane’s book, The Reality of Jesus: An Essay on Christology. He pulls the theological and the historical together rather well in a very simple and reader friendly format.

JR :slight_smile:


Since he is God, I would assume he is a combination of the best traits of all 4 temperaments :thumbsup:


WOW ! Thanks, JR. :slight_smile: I think that you have drawn up, a VERY clear
and wonderful ‘profile’, of Jesus !
Do you also think that He had a bit of an introverted side, as well ( goes off to be alone & pray ) ?


You just gave my answer. I would have said all equally balanced, but it means the same thing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B


I would be very surprised to find anyone agreeing with you!


Jesus is Love.
He is obedient to His Father at all times.
He is kind, patient and forgiving.
His mercy is unlimited.
He loves all children-the hope of all mankind-because they
believe in Him with all their heart.
He is respectful of all persons, and treats women with diffidence-out of respect for his Mother, Mary-whom He shares with us all.
He chose His apostles from among the poor, the uneducated,
the rash and impetuous, the hated and the loathed-only to raise them up to be beloved.
He came to save the sinners, comfort the grieving, and to cure the sick.
He spoke in parables to relate to the common man and because those who refuse to hear His message had hearts hardened by sin-and would not listen to(believe in) whatever He said.
Some scribes and pharisees believed Him, but did not want to hear Him-or His message.

Jesus humbled Himself to enter into our humanity-a great gift.
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

He has revealed the Father to us and sent His Spirit to instruct and guide us.

Jesus was born poor and remained very poor all of His life.
He was able to endure His Passion and Death only because His placed complete trust in His Father as He sacrificed Himself for us.

Jesus became sin for us and died for us to reopen the channel closed by sin between us and God.

And in His moment of agony and abandonment, He allowed Himself to witness and experience the consequence of sin-
out of His Love for us.

If that were not enough, He left us the gift of Himself as He continually represents this same sacrifice during the Holy Mass and we are invited to participate and share in His Passion , Death and Resurrection-And then He nourishes us with His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity

Thank You my Jesus.


Yes, Thistle, on here I would too. Fortunately I am not necessarily asking for agreement, I am suggesting we reason based on the definitions and histories of words, as well as some rules for clear thinking. For instance, the statement “I would be surprised to find anyone agreeing with you” contains the “non-allness” falacy. It is one of the most common errors that lead to false conclusions in the areas of prejudice and exclusion in the form “all (or no) x are y.” False premise, false conclusion. Judging from other threads, use of this fallacy may be a good way to become embroiled in emotionalism, false piety, and perhaps on a larger scale, to start wars if we have access to dangerous toys. Chief among these toys is incorrect thinking.

It is also useful to remember the admonition that “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.” (of course in binary “10” means “2.”) In order to say what you did it is necessary that you believe that all people in the world operate on exactly your premises. This cannot be, or this forum would not exist. If you don’t believe that everyone thinks from the same data, then you have misrepresented yourself by your allness statement.

Perhaps you are very young and have not reached the grade level at which critical thinking is taught, in which case you have a wonderful world of possibility ahead of you. At least when I graduated the Catholic school system they were still teaching that, as well as how to do research and evauate materials using such tools as epistemology, General Semantics, grammar, ontology, phenomenology, etc. I hope that the alleged dumbing down of America has not yet reached that school system, though it seems too late for the public one, and public thought as well.


And the only human that was able to do/be this.:yup:


I would think that your impression would include those traits that you can truly understand, and therefore possibly not all the ones He actually had?


I am 60 and well aware of my faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using “Christ” instead of “Jesus”. It is scriptural to do that anyway. Read what Paul said in 1 Corinthians!


Yes, I know that; my version uses both, but mainly “the Christ.” My comment was meant to put the question in an historical context, so the usage note and its implications remain. We are after all, each reading a translation of something comparatively ancient. I sometimes remember and have a chuckle at the story of the lady who was asked why she didn’t learn a foreign language in a situation that merited that. She replied “God writ the Bible in English, and that makes it good enough for me!”

I’ve got about a year in age on you, so can offer congratulations on making it so far! May you continue to be in good health and prosper.


Have a joyful Christmas and lets pray 2009 is a less stressful year.
I’m off to Christmas day lunch here now. I live in the Philippines so timewise we are ahead. Already attended the 6.45am Mass.


Well, it is good to know that tomorrow will arrive, lol! May you and yours have a happy and a blessed Christmas!



I would have to agree with you on that, yes.

JR :slight_smile:


Thank You for the confirmation, JR. :slight_smile:

Hope that you & everyone here, enjoys a very wonderful & Blessed Christmas !

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.