Does Freemason Marcus Aurelius mention Jesus in 200 AD?

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...



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."

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.



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).



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.



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

reply to post by JustMe74

---

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


Do you think this was fiction?

Or this?

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?

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.



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]

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:



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]

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

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.



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



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.

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.

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.

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

external image

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.

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.