Does Freemason Marcus Aurelius mention Jesus in 200 AD?

How about the Great Architect. The Creator. Fremasons make things, they unite with the Creator and see themselves as possible "workers" of the Great Architect in that they can change or influence society because of their rank and position in society. To do good for Man is to do God's work. Many a freemason has performed God's work, but many also have been destructive and followed the way of Ha-Shatan. The love of money/Mammon is what differs a good mason from a deceitful one. The system of freemasonry is a system Man could benefit greatly from, but at the same time, time moves slowly at the top, so it can also mean disaster to Mankind and utter destruction. Power and Love makes powerful allies, but what comes first, the Power of Love or the Love of Power...

No, Tertullian says he was a friend to Christians and Tertullian was a Christian. Read the link here...

Tertullian's Biography



Stomp, the above question has been explained to you ad nauseum. Yet even after circumventing your ban you continue to profess a desire for civil discourse and rapport but your actions display otherwise. You constantly proclaim Jesus as your Lord but would he be here taunting people with nonesense like you concocted?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

---

Wouldn't "Supreme Worshipful Master" discribe Jesus perfetly? Why the enimity?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

If one were to believe that Jesus was God in a accordance to the Transfiguration then a Mason might refer to him as the Great Architect of the Universe. What stomp is doing is trying to be cute, similar to when he refered to the Worship Master as the Worshipful Master Baiter.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

OK, I don't know this person's entourage, but I know about the system of masters within the Mason system. Mastering is important for progress and being a master of one's degree would mean that you've progressed beyond your former state. A grand master would be a person with the highest degree of knowledge and progression within his lodge, and the worship master or ritual master would be a master within his field. But these are mere men and not gods, however they have reached a level of knowledge and wisdom which equals them to God and allows them to influence society like God does, only on a smaller scale.

Not a problem.



The Grand Master is the highest elected offical within a Masonic Grand Jurisdiction-in the United States there are 51 grand Lodges. This is a position held for only one year and sadly, the Grand Master is not always the Mason with 'the highest degree of knowledge'.



Same goes for the Worshipful Master, he is elected to run his lodge for one year.



We do have ritual instructors who are indeed masters of ritual work.



Will I agree that they are mere men, I know of no Mason who equates his esoteric knowledge of The Craft, how ever vast it may be, to somehow imbue him with omnipotency.

Sadly democracy isn't the ultimate way of conducting an organisation or a nation. Bush should be a prime example on that, how he has managed to trick the gullable USA with religion and terror to stay in power for two periods.

The knowledge that equals us with God are the simplest of truths. When you get to the top and understand how society and the world works and how it can be manipulated, you are like the Omnipotent One. Given the power to bring forth life or kill you are like God, or given the power to create and destroy.

When I said ritual and or worship master, I didn't really refer to a position within the lodge, but a way of progressing within the system. You can choose the written way or the way of the ritual or worship. The esoterics can be extracted one way or the other. Understanding the symbolics of Freemasonry to master level will make you a ritual or worship master, that was my idea. One who understands the rituals and how to worship masters them.

[edit on 6/5/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

And to me, it sounds more like he's referring to Apollonius of Tyana.

And rightly so.
Apollonius was up to no good, if you ask me.
(You can also ask more knowledgeable people. You'll likely get the same response. )








[edit on 6-5-2008 by Vanitas]

You've got it! You've made the connection!!

Who's got what, and what is the connection?

You don't seem to have any understanding of what a Roman Catholic or a Pharisee actually is.

The Pharisees were a school of Jewish theologians that existed during the time of Christ. They were *not* Roman Catholics. They were Jewish priests and scholars. The Pharisees did not "attach themselves to Jesus". Most of them opposed Jesus, and called for his arrest and execution. There were some exceptions, most notably, the Pharisee Nicodemus.

The Roman Catholics were the Christians who lived at Rome, and from whom the modern Roman Catholic Church descends.



No.

Actually, no. The Pharicees like the Sadduchees were infact political parties existing at the time of Christ. But their law was the Torah with certain additions to the law which Paul refer to as the Yoke of the Covenant, stones added to the burden of the Law. These laws can be seen in certain Talmudian works. Among other things one of the laws was an extension of the Sabbath commandment. According to this law one could only walk a certain distance on the Sabbath. Curiously enough the distance was from the Temple to Mount Olives. Jesus walked this distance nearly every Sabbath where he preached and healed people etc. angering the politicans, priests and scribes.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

---

Indeed, the man who memorized every ritual in Masonry there is.

Then screams at everyone when they stutter or say Brothern instead of Brethren. << inside joke with our lodge, our country drawl I guess won't let some say BRETHren.

Ah, but without our ritual masters Masonry would be rather pathetic and would have lost the rituals long ago. IMO, our ritual masters hold the traditions of the craft. And I am sure they would love to be called Ritual Master lol.. instead of old grumpy guy.

Source

I used the term to refer to the "school of thought". But even if you define it as a political party attempting to influence the Sanhedrin, they're still not Roman Catholics.

That's not entirely correct (although the statement that they were "political parties" is correct). In their time, the Pharisees were liberal religious reformers (although what we'd consider Modern Orthodox Judaism is directly a result of their teaching). They represented the poor and the anti-Hellenists. The Sadducees were fairly corrupt and represented the hierarchy of the Priesthood, the wealthy elite, and the influence of Hellenism on Judean society.



Being Jewish, and having studied the Talmud, I find this to be an odd statement. I'd like specific examples from the Talmud, if you don't mind. And which Talmud are you referring to? Is this something in the Mishnah or elsewhere? When you're reading the Talmud, which translation are you using?

Naturally. Catholics and Catholicism didn't exist at that time. The basic difference between the Pharicee and Sadduchee parties had to do with theological questions. Among other thing the Sadduchees didn't believe in the ressurrection of the flesh at the Day of the Lord.

From the Zohar to the later works, Talmud is basically a tradition of commentary on the Torah, right? Well when the scribes studied the Prophets and Scriptures they saw that the prophets added to the Law or kept stricter observance of the Law, this resulted in a series of reforms to the original reading of the Torah and it's 613 laws and commandments. It was my understanding that it was based on such commentaries from what became the Talmudian tradition that the Pharicees and similar groups fronted different laws. I haven't studied Talmud at all, I am more of a Bible thumper, but sooner or later I am buying the books. Trying to learn Hebrew and Greek, but progress is slow, still I'm nothing without a lexicon and a dictionary, I can't make sentances because I still haven't figured out of the gramatics, but soon enough I'll learn to read the whole Bible in it's "original" languages.

The Zohar was written in the Middle Ages; the Talmud was written shortly after the destruction of the Temple, in order to preserve the knowledge which had been passed down from teacher to student before.



Essentially - but the Talmud is comprised of many different books. The Mishnah, which is what most people equate with "Talmud", is a series of debates between Rabbis on the meaning of the Torah. The Gemara is the debate and commentary on the Mishnah. There are more parts as well. There are also two major versions of the Talmud (Babylonian, which is the most common, and Jerusalem).



First of all, it's "Talmudic" not "Talmudian" (sorry, don't mean to nitpick). In the history of Judaism, there has never been exact agreement on doctrine, even up to today (which is one reason why you have different denominations). The Talmud also contains a lot of information on what you do in the temple ritual... so most of it would have also been accepted by the Sadducees, who were largely in control of the priesthood.



My personal recommendations (for both English and Hebrew versions):
Stone Edition Tanach (i.e. Bible... this one has Hebrew and English side by side)
English Talmud

reply to post by JustMe74

---

Nice post, interesting stuff.

Star from me.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

Thanks for sharing your information.

The debate, to say the least, is very interesting.

It seems that several different societies and schools
of thought stemmed out from the time of Jesus, and the
original Christian movement.

Whether one wants to admit it or not, the Christian movement
or religion if you must, comes from Christ, Jesus Christ.

It seems bizarre to me that people even try to deny the story
of Jesus and his followers and the events that led up to the
crucifixion.

What, did all the people just "make it up" so they could anger the
Romans and Pharisees of the Temple?

Jesus Christ was/is the real deal.

Sooner people realize that, the sooner we can get down to healing
earth, without demanding payment for it.