[lucerna] aclimatizing to the terminology

Lucerna Discussion lucerna@lists.newearth.org
Sat Jun 10 04:45:47 HST 2006


I believe Jesus is the One and Only Annointed, the only Incarnation of God, born in one time and in one place, 1 C.E., Israel of planet Earth.  And yes, He certainly was annointed with oil, but exactly how and when that ritual took place on Him physically, I do not know and neither does Alan (give him credit for at least answering you) nor any other New Church priest or layman.  I only know cinnamon, the second term, sensually.   I do not know myrrh, the first term, sensually, and I do not know cane (qaneh or KNH), the third term, sensually, only that the word is best defined in English as "reed" and in Latin as "calamus".  We in the New Church tend to believe that Swedenborg translated all Hebrew words perfectly into Latin and so CALAM is correct for KNH but I will credit your doubt as when you think about it--what's so great about a reed or calamus?  But could it be like the palms of Palm Sunday?  Then probably the Lord (Dominus) was annointed on Palm Sunday with myrrh, cinnamon,
 and palm reeds.  This way He would have fulfilled all of the prophesies of the Old Testament.

Bottom Line: No serious New Church person doubts that the Lord (Jesus) did everything He was supposed to do from the Divine Power within Him (called the Father) and only a small portion of things that He did are recorded in the literal sense of the New Testament.  So if He was supposed to be annointed according to the Law of Moses, then He was annointed according to the Law of Moses and with MR, KNNMN and KNH.  Is my answer good enough for you?  

Your real question should be about the Lord's New Church and its ordination practices and should we follow the Law of Moses?  I don't know the answer to that one and I think "antichrist" is a little excessive of a derogatory term to use for people who don't live up to the absolute details of the Law of Moses, we use that term for those who subscribe to the idea of salvation by faith alone.  But stay tuned for more discussion on the priesthood of the Lord's New Church as there are other issues about to surface and other men of both authority and perception and also some women who hopefully will answer your questions without turning this LUCERNA web-site discussion group into a soap opera or worse, a circus.

Richard Campbell   arcam1970@comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> 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 thread 
> 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 
> together. 
> 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 was 
> 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 that 
> 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 BSM. 
> My studies further prove without question that the priesthood must be 
> 'ordained' and 'sanctified' according to the law of Moses. These studies are 
> based upon not only the Writings but the Oriental Orthodox Church doctrines. 
> 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 question 
> is whether one accepts the literal truth of the Word. Is Jesus the Anointed? 
> 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 
> order. 
> 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 
> "Greg" 
> >Reply-To: Discussion on doctrine drawn out of the Latin 
> >Word 
> >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 to 
> >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 
> > >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 written 
> >by 
> > >Rt. Rev. Elmo Acton on, "The Priesthood" and reported in New Church Life 
> > >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 form 
> >a 
> > >distinct organization, and they began by introducing a new and separate 
> > >worship, with baptism and administration of the Holy Supper. This shortly 
> > >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 from 
> > >the Lord in His second coming. They were enlightened to observe the 
> > >following order. The names of the sixteen men constituting the group were 
> > >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." This 
> > >lot was drawn by himself. Then, without the other eleven men knowing this 
> > >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 the 
> > >Lord's New Church. Thus began the priesthood of the New Church. 
> > >The church only gradually came to see fully that Robert Hindmarsh by this 
> > >procedure was the first ordained priest of the New Church. It was not 
> >until 
> > >the Conference of 1818, thirty years later, that the following resolution 
> > >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 it 
> >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 the 
> > >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 
> > > >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? Could 
> > >you 
> > > >please show passages from the "Writings" that lead you to this 
> > >conclusion? 
> > > > 
> > > > > The Word is written in 'Hebrew' and later the Gospel and Revelation 
> >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 to 
> > >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! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ 
> _______________________________________________ 
> lucerna mailing list 
> lucerna@novahierosolyma.org 
> http://novahierosolyma.org/mailman/listinfo/lucerna 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://novahierosolyma.org/pipermail/lucerna/attachments/20060610/0cacf76e/attachment.html>

More information about the lucerna mailing list