Does Freemason Marcus Aurelius mention Jesus in 200 AD?

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...

So I looked up "The Meditations" and I found something interesting.

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;

classics.mit.edu...

Notice the wording carefully. "what WAS said by miracle workers..."

The word jugglers would have referred to someone who entertained with tricks, a sort of put down to someone performing miracles.

And the driving away of daemons.

To me, it sounds like he's referring to Jesus, and Peter, who later performed miracles, and drove out demons.

Now, Marcus Aurelius is referring to Diognetus. Who is Diognetus, and what's his significance?

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

The Invisible God

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.

Here we establish Diognetus as an equestrian.

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

A History of Apologetics

The letter being discussed is the "letter to 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,”

www.fathersofthechurch.com...

So, what we have established, is that Freemasonry evolved from an anti-Christian society, Romans, Namely Marcus Aurelius and the "letter to Diognetus"

At the same, this is the closest possible reference to Jesus, and the Apostles, outside of the Bible, that I have seen.





[edit on 5-5-2008 by cutbothways]

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...
...
So, what we have established, is that Freemasonry evolved from an anti-Christian society, Romans, Namely Marcus Aurelius and the "letter to Diognetus"

That's not what we've established at all!

It's a big jump from "could be considered" to "is considred". One is suggestive, the other declarative. Likewise, there's a big leap from a text being an inspiration to Masonic morality to saying that Freemasonry evolved from an anti-Christian society.

Originally posted by cutbothways
So, what we have established, is that Freemasonry evolved from an anti-Christian society, Romans, Namely Marcus Aurelius and the "letter to Diognetus"

In actuality the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was many things; Stoic, Philospher, Author and Pagan. One thing he was not however was a Freemason. He was also very understanding of others views and religions. Please read the following exerpt from Roman-Emperors.org in which Tertullian refers to him as '...a friend of Christianity.'

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

[edit on 5-5-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by cutbothways


Freemasons date back long before the Roman Empire. The roots of Masonry can be found in Egypt, and some allege that the Moses of biblical history was/is actually the Pharaoh Tutmosis. It is truly amazing that with all the research tools available via the internet, and I am referring to scholarly data, not the rants and texts of activists and conspiracy theorists, that such a postulation can be made here on ATS when this arena is meant to find the truth behind the rumors and urban legends.

Check American history and you will find that most of the "founding fathers" were Masons, and that although they may not follow the tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs, one of the prerequisites is acceptance of a divine creator. "all men are created equal and independent" was the original wording of the Declaration of Independence" drafted by Thomas Paine.

Religion is just another form of rule of the people, is the guise of divine origin. It is meant to subjugate and oppress the masses by offering hope of a better life in the "hereafter" by the blessings of god for their virtuous lives In the meantime, they are kept poor, barely existing from day to day, while those that yield the power of the church enjoyed the wealth of taxation and all the debauchery they claimed as sins.

When the power of love replaces the love of power, there will then be peace on Earth.

Philly Fred

Originally posted by cutbothways
So, what we have established, is that Freemasonry evolved from an anti-Christian society, Romans, Namely Marcus Aurelius and the "letter to Diognetus"

Your methodology is disgraceful.

How can you suggest that Marcus Aurellius is a Freemason in the context of the speculative fraternal organisation you so vigorously attack on these boards?

1. Just because one Masonic writer claims a kind of philosophical lineage from Aurellius DOES NOT equate to him being a Freemason!

2. Aurellius being disinclined to "give credit" to miracle workers, jugglers and daemon-exorcists of ancient times (but rather relying on a personal moral code) DOES NOT equate to him being anti-christian!

3. Combining your two preposterous points (which I have noted above) by suggesting that Freemasonry has anti-Christian roots does not make them any more true!

I realise that, for whatever reason, your intent is to paint Freemasonry in as negative a light as possible, but your is an insult to your readers.

reply to post by Roark


Your avatar is disgraceful.

Umm, must have hit the nail on the head.

again, one of your brethren states

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

Augustus says Aurelius was a friend to the Christians.

BS!

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.

www.ccel.org...

All this trying to distance yourselves from the Roman Emperor, when you guys appear to love the Romans, is beyond me.

And no one even questions whether he is mentioning Jesus or not. But we know he is, don't we?

Yes, the Masons carry the anti-Christ torch for Aiwass.

Originally posted by cutbothways
reply to post by Roark

 

Your avatar is disgraceful.

Uh......hokay. I guess I must've missed it but what does his avatar have to do with his argument?

Originally posted by cutbothways
Umm, must have hit the nail on the head.

again, one of your brethren states.....

[quote snipped and emphasis added]

Notice what the operative word in that statement is? You want to guestimate how many Masons there are and have been? Tens of millions would be a conservative estimate. Yet one opinion is enough for you assert that all must likewise believe. Does this seem reasonable to you?

Originally posted by cutbothways
All this trying to distance yourselves from the Roman Emperor, when you guys appear to love the Romans, is beyond me.

You're building on an unsupportable assertion and bootstrapping. Where's the mountain of supporting evidence of 'loving the Romans'? For that matter, where's the molehill of supporting evidence of 'loving the Romans'?

Originally posted by cutbothways
And no one even questions whether he is mentioning Jesus or not. But we know he is, don't we?

Is that the collective "we" or the royal "we"? Strikes me it's the latter given the paucity of support your assertion's getting.

Originally posted by cutbothways
Yes, the Masons carry the anti-Christ torch for Aiwass.

And that's why your assertions are being met with derision. Because Masons aren't PRO-anything. I'm an Anglican (pesky original Trinitarian Christian if you weren't aware) and there's many others here who are different flavours of Trinitarian Christian. Are you now suggesting that we aren't in fact Christians?

reply to post by Fitzgibbon

And that's why your assertions are being met with derision. Because Masons aren't PRO-anything

Yeah, it's hard to be Pro-anything when your a Con-artist.

reply to post by cutbothways


Marcus Aurelius was a great man, a noted scholar and philosopher, and an honorable and compassionate ruler. He was not, of course, a Freemason, as Freemasonry in the modern sense did not exist at that time.

He does, however, appear to have been an initiate into the mysteries of Mithra, which can be viewed as a sort of prototype of Freemasonry.

reply to post by cutbothways


Um, have you counted your marbles lately? I think you might be missing a few.

Originally posted by cutbothways
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

And that's why your assertions are being met with derision. Because Masons aren't PRO-anything

Yeah, it's hard to be Pro-anything when your a Con-artist.

Nice of you to address the point made. In case it'd eluded you, I'll repost it here for you.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by cutbothways
Yes, the Masons carry the anti-Christ torch for Aiwass.

And that's why your assertions are being met with derision. Because Masons aren't PRO-anything. I'm an Anglican (pesky original Trinitarian Christian if you weren't aware) and there's many others here who are different flavours of Trinitarian Christian. Are you now suggesting that we aren't in fact Christians?

In case you weren't aware, one of the reasons for Masonry not being slanted toward one interpretation of the Supreme Being over another is that at their roots, the major religions of the world have pretty much the same guiding principles for their followers. In my Lodge, there's Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Sikh brethren, all working together peaceably and enjoying one another's company under the direction that discussion of religion and politics, the two most divisive topics known to man, has no place in the Lodge. Do you consider it a bad thing that I'm not shunning (or worse) a good man of a different faith for the sole excuse of his belonging to that other faith? Whatever happened to peace on Earth, goodwill to men?

No one really knows the origins of Freemasonry. I think it's safe to say, though, that there is no direct line from Ancient Egypt, Rome, or anything nearly that ancient. Prior to 1717, the records surrounding "speculative" Freemasonry are pretty spotty. There is also no real evidence (although many Masons would like it to be true) that the Knights Templar had anything to do with the formation of Freemasonry.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


I have noticed a lot of Avatar bashing from Anti's lately.. I was accused of puting subliminal messages (I can't find them..) in mine and my avatar was made by a none-mason lol..

Anyways..

The good Emporer was not a Mason. Masonry does not date back to the Romans, nor to the Egyptians, and it is not Christian.

However, it is the theory Masonry devoloped in the 15-1600's because most evidence says so.. there is little to no evidence linking Masonry as far back as 2000 years. But as Justme says, no one knows the origins of Masonry, because it was once a secret society. We have to go by the evidence at hand.

But I am fairly certain that the Emporer was not a Mason.

You know honestly cutbothways....If you spent only half as much time trying to find the actual honest to God truth about freemasonry as you do filling your head with anti-masonic rhetoric and propoganda, you would be alot less stressed out.....

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I was accused of puting subliminal messages (I can't find them..) in mine ....

You know, I find myself drinking green beer every time I read one of your posts. I knew there was a conspiracy involved!

It was nice of cutsbothways to give us the proper way to deal with his own posts...

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.

classics.mit.edu...
and later...

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.

classics.mit.edu...

So even if Marcus Aurelius has absolutely nothing to do with Masonry, he does suggest ways we should deal with anti-masons such as cutsbothways. I think Skyfloating was right in that we should try to offer compassion where possible.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Wonder if he was thinking that as he was killing Christians?

Was he Roman Catholic?

Originally posted by cutbothways


Wonder if he was thinking that as he was killing Christians?

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.

Source

Was he Roman Catholic?

He was a Stoic. The Christians you claim he persecuted were Roman Catholics.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by cutbothways
To me, it sounds like he's referring to Jesus, and Peter, who later performed miracles, and drove out demons.

Hey, wake up. Read some contemporary history and understand that Jesus was one of thousands of miracle workers in his time. Somewhere the act of "walking on water" is explained the way these contemporaries-with-Jesus performed it. They first held a speach where they explained themselves as being the Light, i.e. the Truth. They would annoint themselves with oil and call themselves the Messiah. Then they would pour oil on the water and light it, and the wind would move the "burning oilslick" over to the other side of the lake, and the Light walked on water. Further, why did Jesus need two fish in order to feed the people in the desert? From before we know that Man lives not from food alone, but from every word that comes out of the mouth of God. Then we have astrology which at the time of Jesus entered the Age of Pisches -- the two fish. The bread he served was himself. "This is my flesh". Jesus is the Word, not Reality. He was a worker of miracles -- tricks having to do with the Word of God and teachings of God. He used medicine to heal people of their afflictions, and in some cases Placebo was enough. Nothing new under the sun...

reply to post by Masonic Light

He was a Stoic. The Christians you claim he persecuted were Roman Catholics.

No, the Roman Catholics were the pharisees. They later attached themselves with Jesus, because they saw a way to make money.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't the Masons worship the Supreme Worshipful Master or something like that.