Does Freemason Marcus Aurelius mention Jesus in 200 AD?

Marcus Aurelius could be considered the first Freemason. His famous work The Meditations could be considered the source of Masonic morality.

From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals and the government of my temper.
...
From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about incantations and the driving away of daemons and such things;

Anthenagoras addressed Marcus and Commodus; an anonymous Severen addressed Ti. Claudius Diognetus. (imperial procurator of Egypt A.D. 204)

out of 13 prefects of Italian fleets whose careers are known only Iulianus (L. Iulius Vehilius
Gratus Iulianus) and Q. Baienus Blassianus had previously commanded provincial fleet“.
26
Nevertheless, we know as many as eleven equestrians, who served twice in the post of praefectus classis:
−
P. Aelius Marcianus – classis Syriaca, Moesica,
−
Q. Baienus Blassianus – classis Britannica, Ravennatis,
−
M. Calpurnius Seneca Fabius Turpio Sentinatianus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
Claudius Diognetus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
P. Cominius Clemens – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
T. Furius Victorinus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
M. Gavius Maximus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
L. Iulius Vehilius Gratus Iulianus – classis Pontica, Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
Sex. Lucilius Bassus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis,
−
Tuticanius Capito – classis Ravennatis, Misenensis.
Most of them (nine) commanded, in succession, both Italian fleets.

If so, the addressee may well be the equestrian procurator, Claudius Diognetus

“I see thee, most excellent Diognetus, exceedingly desirous to learn the mode of worshiping God prevalent among the Christians, and inquiring very carefully and earnestly concerning them, what God they trust in, and what form of religion they observe,”

Although Marcus was a devoted thinker and philosopher, he was deeply religious, at least outwardly. The state cult received full honor, and he recognized the validity of other people's beliefs, so that the variety of religions in the vast extent of the empire caused no difficulties for inhabitants or government, with one significant exception. The Christians were not hampered by any official policy; indeed the impact of the church spread enormously in the second century. Yet their availability as scapegoats for local crises made them subject to abuse or worse. There was violence against them in 167, and perhaps the worst stain on Marcus' principate stemmed from the pogrom of Christians in Lugdunum in southern France in 177. He did not cause it, nor, on the other hand, did he or his officials move to stop it. Indeed, Tertullian called him a friend of Christianity. Yet the events were a precursor of what would come in the century and a quarter which followed

Marcus-Aurelius certainly knew many Christians. He had them among his servants; he conceived little esteem for them. The kind of supernatural which formed the basis of Christianity was repugnant to him
...
But one feature shocked him, that was their air of triumph, their way of acting in the face of death. This bravado against the law appeared hateful; as chief of the state he saw in it a danger.

From Alexander the grammarian, to refrain from fault-finding, and not in a reproachful way to chide those who uttered any barbarous or solecistic or strange-sounding expression; but dexterously to introduce the very expression which ought to have been used, and in the way of answer or giving confirmation, or joining in an inquiry about the thing itself, not about the word, or by some other fit suggestion.

When thou art offended with any man's shameless conduct, immediately ask thyself, Is it possible, then, that shameless men should not be in the world? It is not possible. Do not, then, require what is impossible. For this man also is one of those shameless men who must of necessity be in the world. Let the same considerations be present to thy mind in the case of the knave, and the faithless man, and of every man who does wrong in any way. For at the same time that thou dost remind thyself that it is impossible that such kind of men should not exist, thou wilt become more kindly disposed towards every one individually. It is useful to perceive this, too, immediately when the occasion arises, what virtue nature has given to man to oppose to every wrongful act. For she has given to man, as an antidote against the stupid man, mildness, and against another kind of man some other power. And in all cases it is possible for thee to correct by teaching the man who is gone astray; for every man who errs misses his object and is gone astray. Besides wherein hast thou been injured? For thou wilt find that no one among those against whom thou art irritated has done anything by which thy mind could be made worse; but that which is evil to thee and harmful has its foundation only in the mind. And what harm is done or what is there strange, if the man who has not been instructed does the acts of an uninstructed man? Consider whether thou shouldst not rather blame thyself, because thou didst not expect such a man to err in such a way. For thou hadst means given thee by thy reason to suppose that it was likely that he would commit this error, and yet thou hast forgotten and art amazed that he has erred. But most of all when thou blamest a man as faithless or ungrateful, turn to thyself. For the fault is manifestly thy own, whether thou didst trust that a man who had such a disposition would keep his promise, or when conferring thy kindness thou didst not confer it absolutely, nor yet in such way as to have received from thy very act all the profit. For what more dost thou want when thou hast done a man a service? Art thou not content that thou hast done something conformable to thy nature, and dost thou seek to be paid for it? Just as if the eye demanded a recompense for seeing, or the feet for walking. For as these members are formed for a particular purpose, and by working according to their several constitutions obtain what is their own; so also as man is formed by nature to acts of benevolence, when he has done anything benevolent or in any other way conducive to the common interest, he has acted conformably to his constitution, and he gets what is his own.

Some historians believe that the extent of any Christian persecution under Marcus Aurelius was overstated. He was a pagan and he was tolerant of different religious faiths. He believed that Christianity was immoral but basically harmless. However, he also would not intervene and stop a Christian persecution unless the Christian recanted. As the Roman Empire was a pagan entity at this time of history, it is not an unreasonable policy for Marcus Aurelius to have pursued.

By definition, all non-Roman Catholic Christians reject the Papal title of "Supreme Head of the Church" or any title that gives him universal ecclesiastical authority.