[lucerna] JESUS as CHRIST

Lucerna Discussion lucerna@lists.newearth.org
Sat Jun 10 03:26:33 HST 2006

Well, my first reaction to this message was: "What is the arcanum contained 
in Greg's writing that 'the "priesthood" for the New Church has not yet been 
established?'" Since you chose to refer to the Robert Hindmarsh story 
(reported by Elmo Acton) on the one hand, and here refer to anointment with 
the "'oil' of Moses" on the other hand, I take it that you object to the 
idea of the New Church Movement (so that it encompasses five or so branches) 
claiming to have a "priesthood" when the members of that "priesthood" have 
not been ordained (anointed) with the "'oil' of Moses." Is that meant to 
suggest that all acts performed by so-called "priests" over the 200+ year 
life of the New Church Movement have been in vain spiritually?

A second question that comes to my mind for you is: "The fact that you are 
emphasizing the anointing of Jesus--which is the Hebrew identity of THE 
CHRIST, if you will allow me to say it that way--does this in any way lead 
us away from the importance of Jesus as 'The Christ'?"

Regards, Alan

>Reply-To: Discussion on doctrine drawn out of the Latin 
>To: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
>Subject: Re: [lucerna] aclimatizing to the terminology
>Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:50:30 -0400
>Alan I appreciate your asking me to expound on the subject. The object of
>the Hierosolyma is to understand the hidden meaning within the Writings. My
>work is to make that mystery known. I have never been in a discussion 
>and so please accept my apologies for my lack of education. According to my
>studies the 'priesthood' for the New Church has not yet been established.
>The use of the blessed 'oil' is required. This also goes to the return
>concept and the need to understand the hidden literal meaning by looking to
>the Hebrew KNH. It is this literal truth that ties all of these concepts
>The question on whether one accepts that Jesus is the Anointed goes to this
>subject as well. It has been my experience from engagements with
>Swedenborgian 'virtual priests' that they do not accept that Jesus is or 
>ever physically anointed. Which of coarse is rather odd when one
>contemplates the importance of the literal Word in Swedenborgian theology.
>When one accepts the fact that Jesus is the Anointed then the question
>becomes with what? According to the Writings the answers are oblique in 
>the CALAM* is claimed to be the third term in Exodus 30:23. All Biblical
>scholars are in agreement that this term is in error for the Hebrew KNH 
>My studies further prove without question that the priesthood must be
>'ordained' and 'sanctified' according to the law of Moses. These studies 
>based upon not only the Writings but the Oriental Orthodox Church 
>It seems that they have dispensed with the use of the 'oil' and now use a
>fabrication termed 'chrismation' that does not conform. Anyway, the 
>is whether one accepts the literal truth of the Word. Is Jesus the 
>It the answer to this question that goes to the heart of the mystery of the
>Writings and their hidden meaning. Did the Lord speak to Moses? To reform
>the New Church the priesthood must be established base upon His Divine
>The term 'sanctified' and 'ordained' mean clearly that the initiate is
>anointed with the 'oil' of Moses. And that opens up the whole ball of wax.
>What is the third term in the Holy anointing oil of Moses in Exodus 30:23?
>In order to establish the priesthood for His New Church we need to know. My
>work establishes the undeniable fact of what it is. This fact is what will
>cause the division in the 'Christian Church' and establish in the mind who
>the antichrist is. The antichrist is the doctrine of those who say that the
>Lord's anointing oil, Lev. 10:7 is no longer a 'representative'.
>Your brother in the Anointed, literally
> >Reply-To: Discussion on doctrine drawn out of the Latin
> >Word<lucerna@novahierosolyma.org>
> >To: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> >Subject: [lucerna] aclimatizing to the terminology
> >Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:35:18 -0400
> >
> >Well, Brother Gregory, my name is Alan Longstaff, and I have just
> >transferred over to LUCERNA from the REFORM website, and I think I need 
> >aclimatize myself.
> >
> >I see that the subject is "The Priesthood," or perhaps the "virtual
> >priesthood," and while I am familiar with the terms you are using--eg.
> >"Anointed"--I'm not yet sufficiently sure of the terminology--ie. the use
> >being made of the terms--to answer your questions. Alan
> >
> > >Reply-To: Discussion on doctrine drawn out of the Latin
> > >Word<lucerna@novahierosolyma.org>
> > >To: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> > >Subject: Re: [lucerna] Lucerna discussion
> > >Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:30:20 -0400
> > >
> > >On the question of ordination of the priesthood the following is the
> > >doctrine of the Swedenborgian Churches that recognize that only a
> >"virtual
> > >priesthood" has been established.This report was authoritatively 
> >by
> > >Rt. Rev. Elmo Acton on, "The Priesthood" and reported in New Church 
> > >1973:93:399-410
> > >
> > >The History
> > >Our subject properly begins with the first New Church ordination or
> > >inauguration, which took place in London, England, in 1788. A group of
> >men
> > >who met regularly, beginning in 1783, for the purpose of reading and
> > >studying the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, gradually came to see that
> > >those Writings revealed the consummation of the former church and the
> > >beginning of a new dispensation of the church. For the uses of this new
> > >church to exist in the world, they saw that it would be necessary to 
> >a
> > >distinct organization, and they began by introducing a new and separate
> > >worship, with baptism and administration of the Holy Supper. This 
> > >led them to see that for the orderly performance of worship and the
> > >sacraments a new priesthood was necessary. At first they considered
> > >requesting ordination from one of the existing churches, but gradually
> >they
> > >came to see that as the New Jerusalem was the beginning of a new
> > >dispensation of the church, it must derive its authority immediately 
> > >the Lord in His second coming. They were enlightened to observe the
> > >following order. The names of the sixteen men constituting the group 
> > >placed in a receptacle, and of them twelve were chosen. On one of the
> >lots,
> > >which were prepared by Robert Hindmarsh, he wrote the word "Ordain." 
> > >lot was drawn by himself. Then, without the other eleven men knowing 
> > >fact, Hindmarsh was chosen by them to read the service. The twelve then
> > >placed their right hands upon the heads of James Hindmarsh and Samuel
> > >Smith,
> > >Robert Hindmarsh reading the service, and ordained them as priests in 
> > >Lord's New Church. Thus began the priesthood of the New Church.
> > >The church only gradually came to see fully that Robert Hindmarsh by 
> > >procedure was the first ordained priest of the New Church. It was not
> >until
> > >the Conference of 1818, thirty years later, that the following 
> > >was passed:
> > >". . . in consequence of Mr. R. Hindmarsh having been called by lot to
> > >ordain the first minister in the New Church, this Conference consider 
> >as
> > >the most orderly method which could then be adopted and that Mr. R.
> > >Hindmarsh was virtually ordained by the Divine auspices of heaven; in
> > >consequence of which this Conference consider Mr. Hindmarsh as one of 
> > >regular ordaining ministers."
> > >
> > >The question I ask you all is this: Since the name Jesus signifies the
> > >Divine Goodness and Christ signifies Divine Truth, Is the Divine Truth
> > >literally true? Is Jesus the Anointed, literally? My study has shown
> > >conclusively in the Writings that this is affirmatively true. Can you
> > >confess that Jesus is the Anointed, physically and literally? Are you
> > >sanctified? Or are you anti-anointed?
> > >
> > >Your brother in the Anointed,
> > >
> > >"Greg"
> > >
> > >
> > > >Reply-To: Discussion on doctrine drawn out of the Latin
> > > >Word<lucerna@novahierosolyma.org>
> > > >To: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [lucerna] Lucerna discussion
> > > >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:09:12 EDT
> > > >
> > > >In a message dated 6/9/2006 9:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > >brothergregory@hotmail.com writes:
> > > >You are the only one so far to even give me a response. Your
> > > >reply seems to be from out of your own self intelligence.
> > > >To say that one is replying out of their "own self intelligence" is
> > >perhaps
> > > >not the best way to encourage anyone to respond to you.
> > > >
> > > >Out of whose intelligence are you writing?
> > > >This whole discussion of 'doctrine drawn out of the Latin Word' is in
> > >error
> > > >according to the Writings.
> > > >Would you please indicate more precisely from the "Writings" how this
> > >whole
> > > >discussion of 'doctrine drawn out of the Latin Word' is in error? 
> > >you
> > > >please show passages from the "Writings" that lead you to this
> > >conclusion?
> > > >
> > > > > The Word is written in 'Hebrew' and later the Gospel and 
> >is
> > > >written in Greek.
> > > >
> > > >Do you believe that the Word was also later written in Latin?
> > > >
> > > >Hugh
> > >
> > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >lucerna mailing list
> > > >lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> > > >http://novahierosolyma.org/mailman/listinfo/lucerna
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how 
> > >get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >lucerna mailing list
> > >lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> > >http://novahierosolyma.org/mailman/listinfo/lucerna
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >lucerna mailing list
> >lucerna@novahierosolyma.org
> >http://novahierosolyma.org/mailman/listinfo/lucerna
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>lucerna mailing list

More information about the lucerna mailing list