Does Freemason Marcus Aurelius mention Jesus in 200 AD?

Originally posted by cutbothways
The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, is considered by the Freemasons to be the first freemason.

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

www.bonisteelml.org...

Emphasis mine.

A book "tease" bolstered into an empirical statement... I dare say you're 'building" something. It takes some effort to "craft" an intellectual "edifice" like this.

I humbly submit my avatar for review and critique.

First Monkey, just for being considered anymore...

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Dave, right?

That is why I put a question mark in the title.

Isn't "The Book of Thoth" based on an Egyptian
god in the form of a Baboon?



Thanks for chiming in.

Steve.

Dave's not here man...

Originally posted by cutbothways
Dave, right?

That is why I put a question mark in the title.

The punctuation in question (?) clearly addresses whether Marcus Aurelius mentions Jesus, not whether Marcus Aurelius is a Freemason.

I believe that was an attempt to "spin."

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

It's probably more accurate to say that the Christian movement came out of the many other movements that were going on... you had Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and many, many more groups running around in ancient Judea around the time Jesus was said to have lived.

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

No doubt. However, a lot of Jesus's teachings are directly from traditional Jewish teachings (like the "golden rule" for example... it's in Leviticus, and also Rabbi Hillel talked about it before Jesus).

Originally posted by cutbothways
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?

Unfortunately, it's really hard to know how much is history and how much is fiction. First of all, there are many other "gospels" out there that didn't make it into the Christian canon. Who's to say for sure which ones are accurate and which are not? It was the Roman Catholic Church - that you despise, judging from your posts - that decided what constitutes the "New Testament" that you read.

Originally posted by cutbothways
Sooner people realize that, the sooner we can get down to healing
earth [emphasis by JustMe74], without demanding payment for it.

We have this concept in Judaism too. It's called tikkum olam.

reply to post by JustMe74

Unfortunately, it's really hard to know how much is history and how much is fiction. First of all, there are many other "gospels" out there that didn't make it into the Christian canon.

What about this passage from Jesus Christ, (the original Christian)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the
works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I
go to the Father." John 14:12

Do you think this was fiction?

Or this?

"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he
who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life." John 8:12

reply to post by cutbothways


I have no idea if Jesus was a real person or not, and frankly, it's not really very important to me. The passages in the New Testament that you quoted are important to a Christian believer, of course, but they do not constitute historical evidence of anything.

In any event, I'd prefer not to get into a debate about whether or not Jesus was real or not (and it's really off topic for this thread anyway). If you're just asking for my personal opinion, I do believe he was probably a real person, but unfortunately, all we know about him was written by his followers. As a Jewish person, I do not believe that he was anything more than an ordinary man.

Originally posted by JustMe74
reply to post by cutbothways

 

I have no idea if Jesus was a real person or not, and frankly, it's not really very important to me. The passages in the New Testament that you quoted are important to a Christian believer, of course, but they do not constitute historical evidence of anything.

In any event, I'd prefer not to get into a debate about whether or not Jesus was real or not (and it's really off topic for this thread anyway). If you're just asking for my personal opinion, I do believe he was probably a real person, but unfortunately, all we know about him was written by his followers. As a Jewish person, I do not believe that he was anything more than an ordinary man.

Since the Masons take an OATH on the Bible, and the New Testament is part of that bible, it surprises me you suggest the bible is untrue.

What about the parting of the Red Sea?

The Great Flood? All fiction?

The serpent fooling Eve?

Originally posted by cutbothways
Since the Masons take an OATH on the Bible, and the New Testament is part of that bible,

Actually, during the degrees, you can choose whatever "bible" you want (the Christian Bible, Jewish Bible, Koran, etc.) The "New Testament" is not part of my bible at all. Since Masonry is not a religion, but rather a group where like minded people of many religions can come together, it makes sense that someone can use the "volume of sacred law" that has the most meaning to them. Now, in most lodges in the US, the KJV Bible is the "default" VSL.

Originally posted by cutbothways
it surprises me you suggest the bible is untrue.

I didn't suggest that at all. I don't recognize the "New Testament" as part of the bible at all, nor do any other Jewish people (though of course I certainly respect YOUR right, and the right of other Christians, to believe what you wish). We have the Tanach which has what you refer to as the "Old Testament."

I will admit that I'm not a biblical literalist -- but I would certainly never suggest that the bible is "untrue."



[edit on 5/8/2008 by JustMe74]

Now, in most lodges in the US, the KJV Bible is the "default" VSL.

[snip]
I didn't suggest that at all. I don't recognize the "New Testament" as part of the bible at all, nor do any other Jewish people (though of course I certainly respect YOUR right, and the right of other Christians, to believe what you wish). We have the Tanach which has what you refer to as the "Old Testament."

I will admit that I'm not a biblical literalist -- but I would certainly never suggest that the bible is "untrue."



[edit on 5/8/2008 by JustMe74]

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

www.biblegateway.com...


This passage include Zeus, Mercury, Horus, Thoth, Babi or anyone else.

The bible couldn't be clearer.

Worshiping and studying are two completely different things.

Ofcourse you do leave out a key element, which comes right before your selected versus:

Deuteronomy 13
Worshiping Other Gods
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods"

Miraculous signs and wonders being the key element to that scripture segmant....

However, it is not uncommon for fanatics to believe in ultimate censorship, under the penalty of death. I believe we call them terrorists....

[edit on 5/8/2008 by Choronzon]

Originally posted by cutbothways


Isn't "The Book of Thoth" based on an Egyptian
god in the form of a Baboon?

No. Thoth, the Egyptian God of Science and the Mysteries, was represented with the head of an ibis.

Originally posted by cutbothways


Since the Masons take an OATH on the Bible, and the New Testament is part of that bible, it surprises me you suggest the bible is untrue.

The Bible in Masonry is used both a symbol of Divine Will, and as a book of good moral instruction. No Mason is required to believe in its theology.

What about the parting of the Red Sea?

The Great Flood? All fiction?

In my opinion, yes. Although I would prefer using the term "allegory" instead of "fiction".

The serpent fooling Eve?

Seeing as how serpents can't really talk, and apples don't really have magical powers, then obviously there is another meaning to the story than the literal one.

Originally posted by JustMe74
Actually, during the degrees, you can choose whatever "bible" you want (the Christian Bible, Jewish Bible, Koran, etc.)

There is no such thing as a Jewish bible. Biblia is a Greco latin word that means books. It names the books of the old and new testaments. However the Tannakh is the Old Testament we know and appreciate.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by cutbothways


Isn't "The Book of Thoth" based on an Egyptian
god in the form of a Baboon?

No. Thoth, the Egyptian God of Science and the Mysteries, was represented with the head of an ibis.

Thoth
(Djehuty, Tahuti, Tehuti)

Symbols: ibis, baboon, writing palette and reed pens
Cult Center: Hermopolis

The god of wisdom and learning. He was said to be self-created in the beginning along with his consort, the goddess Ma'at (truth). The two produced eight children, the most important being Amon. Alternately depicted as an ibis-headed human, an ibis, or a baboon (or dog-headed ape), perhaps because the grave facial expressions of these creatures suggested thoughtfulness. He carries a pen and scrolls with which he records all things.

www.egyptianmyths.net...

Are you suggesting this link is wrong?

Why is it so important to draw likeness with a dog or a boboon? If you are wise they both good creatures with good personalities. However Toth is seen as an ibis headed god.

Originally posted by cutbothways


Are you suggesting this link is wrong?

No, as it says, Thoth was represented with the head of an ibis. If he was also represented at times as a baboon, the depiction wasn't a popular one.

THOTH

Originally posted by cutbothways

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.

The pharicees and the Romans are two different things. The Roman church wasn't invented until centuries after Jesus' death and certainly had nothing to do with judaism.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by JustMe74
Actually, during the degrees, you can choose whatever "bible" you want (the Christian Bible, Jewish Bible, Koran, etc.)

There is no such thing as a Jewish bible. Biblia is a Greco latin word that means books. It names the books of the old and new testaments. However the Tannakh is the Old Testament we know and appreciate.

I'm well aware of that... haha. Jewish Bible is an accepted term in English for the Hebrew acronym Tanach (which most non-Jews are not familiar with)... thats why I said it that way. "Old Testament" is kind of offensive, just FYI.

Originally posted by JustMe74
I'm well aware of that... haha. Jewish Bible is an accepted term in English for the Hebrew acronym Tanach (which most non-Jews are not familiar with)... thats why I said it that way. "Old Testament" is kind of offensive, just FYI.

Yeah I guess, it's not a good title at all. An I may be quite strict saying the Tannakh is not the bible of the Jews, but the word Biblia is the name of the Books of the Tannakh together with the Gospel and the books and epistles of the Christian æra. To me, calling the Tannakh the Bible would be like calling the Bible the Tannakh Not quite fitting...

reply to post by cutbothways


You have incorrectly assumed that he was refering to "Jesus." There were, in point of fact, hundreds of these "magi", and this is not a "reference outside the bible" of Jesus existing. None. There is no indication of whom this Roman refers to. Besides, it is 200 years AFTER your supposed Savior walked the earth, so how could this Roman state ANYTHING valid?

"Paul" was also a magician, one that many real, historical Roman emperors paid close attention to.

However, "Paul" was in reality Apollonius of Taurus, a very well known historical figure (A POL lonius), and was in fact the person used for his image to portray Jesus. Go google it, and see.

it is amazing to watch "Christians", well aware there is NO historical evidence thier "Savior" ever existed, struggle over and over again to find the SLIGHTEST historical record of this mythical being. You never will, as "Jesus" is an archetype, not a reality.