James Trimm Responds
(1999)
Update July 2003:
For the Latest on James Trimm and his activities,
including his false doctorate, Please see the following Seek
God series of articles:
"Doctor" James
Scott Trimm
James Trimm as
Rabbi Yosef Doctor James
Trimm's Diploma
Trimm
Critics
Stan Eisenberg Letter Doctor James Trimm's "Jewish"
School & International Beit Din
Saint John
Chrysostom Theological Seminary
Table of
Credentials MBI Yeshiva
& The Hargis Clan
A Closer Look at David & Don
Hargis
Hargis Timelines
Hargis Roles Marian Hargis & Linda C Hargis & Linda
G Hargis
NEWSFLASH! MBI
NEWSFLASH!
***End
Update
The Following is an Email exchange between
James Trimm and myself regarding content of the Hebrew Roots
Series, particularly Part IV: The Talmud and Demonology. James
Trimm works closely with Kabbalist Avi ben Mordechai and also
Lost Tribes. While their adherents have been offended by our
suggestion that they are kabbalists, neither Trimm or ben
Mordechai, who also corresponded with us, denied this
fact. In fact they openly teach kabbalist
material.
Subject: mis-Quoting Talmud out of Context Date: Sat, 04
Sep 1999 02:21:19 -0500 From: James Trimm
<jstrimm@swbell.net> To: nazarene@nazarene.net CC:
vdillen_vdil@qlo.com
I reviewed your webpage and found
it to be VERY dishonest.
On your webpage the following
mis-quote of the Talmud appears:
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew
may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than
nine years old
Talmud is a very complex document to
study. It can take years just to learn how to read it. Here
we have a discusion which revolves around two Torah
commands: One against Sodomites in general and another against
a man lying with a man as he would with a woman. The Rabbis
break this down into two basic kinds of Sodomy: asctive
sodomy and passive sodomy. Active sdomy is to sodomize
someone else, while passive sodomy is to subject oneself
to being sodomized. The argument goes into great detail to
point out that while he who sodomizes a child below the age
of nine is obviously guilty of active sodomy he cannot be
guilty of passive sodomy because the child is not capable
of actively sodomizing him. The issue is a technical issoue
of whether he is guilty of one sin or two. The passage
simply means that the man who sodomizes a child under the
age of nine is only guilty of active sodomy but not guilty
of passive sodomy (allowing the child to sodomize him)
which is actually a no-brainer which we would all agree with.
If the Sodmite had committed the act with a concenting
adult he would be guilty both of active sodomy in that he
had sodomized another man and passive sodomy in allowing
himself to be sodomized.
This is just one example of
how anti-semites take Talmud passages out of context. This
passage is often quoted out of context by anti-semites
to falsely make people think that Jews advocate sodomizing
children below the age of nine. The goal is to cause people
to hate Jews. The Nazis of Germany quoted the same passage
out of context with the same goal, to cause people to hate
Jews and in this case to think that Jews sodmize
young children.
This is just sick and propogated by
sick hateful anti semites.
There is no place for such
sick propaganda.
You did not get this passage from
studying the Talmud because had you done so you could
plainly see that you were quoting it out of
context. (actually you misquoted it also). Unless you
deliberately took it out of context.
I can only
reach one of two conclusions. Either:
1. You read the
Talmud and DELIBERASTLY took it out of context. or:
2.
You got it by studying anti-Semitic literature through which
this out-of context passage can be traced back at least to
Nazi Germany.
The Talmud section in its
entirety:
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 54b
This
teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal
prohibition? - >From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 From
this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with
a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person
who permits himself thus to be abused? - Scripture saith:
There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it
is further said, And there were also sodomites in the land:
and they did according to the abominations of the nations
which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel:3
this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: This is
unnecessary, the Writ saith, thou shalt not lie with
mankind as with womankind: read, 'thou shalt not be
lain with.'4 Whence do we learn a formal prohibition
against bestiality? - Our Rabbis taught : [and if a man lie
with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall
slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth with
a beast - whether it be young or old; he shall surely be put
to death - by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of
the other deaths decreed in the Torah is meant? - It is
here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and it is
stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [. . . And
thou shalt stone in him with stones]:6 just as there,
stoning is meant, so here too.
We have learnt from
this the punishment for him who commits bestiality; whence
do we derive punishment for him who allows himself to be
thus abused? - The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with a beast
shall surely be put to death.7 Since this is redundant in
respect of the person committing bestiality,8 you must
regard it as applying to the person permitting himself to
be thus abused.9 From the Writ we know that there is
punishment both for him who commits bestiality and for him
who permits himself to be thus abused; whence do we know
the formal prohibition? - Scripture saith, neither shalt
thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From
this verse we learn the formal prohibition for him who
commits bestiality, whence do we derive the formal
prohibition for him who allows himself to be thus
abused? Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the
sons of Israel; and it is elsewhere said, And there were
also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba said: This is
unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with
any beast], which means, thou shalt not permit thy lying
[with any beast, whether actively or
passively].
Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty,
and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused - R.
Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two
penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou
shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating
the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons
of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he incurs only one
penalty, since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be
lain with is but one statement.12
He who commits
bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused - R.
Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties,
one for the injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast,
and one for the prohibition, there shall be no sodomite of
the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he incurs but
one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying
[passively] is but one injunction. Abaye said: Even on R.
Ishmael's view he incurs one penalty only, for there shall
be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 If so,
whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition
against permitting oneself to be bestially abused? - From
the verse, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put
to death.14 Now, this being redundant in respect of him who
[actively] lies with a beast,15 apply it to him
who [passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the
Divine Law designates the passive offender as the active
offender:16 this teaches that the punishment for, and the
formal prohibition against, active bestiality17 apply to
passive submission too.18
He who submits both to
pederasty and to bestiality - R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's
view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie
[with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with
any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one
punishment, both offences being derived from the single
verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on
R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, because it is
written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put
to death.20 This being redundant in respect of active
bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission,
and the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an
active offence: just as for the active offence there is
punishment and prohibitions so for the passive offence
too.21 But he who commits pederasty and causes himself to
be abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes
himself to be abused too - both R. Abbahu and Abaye
maintain that on R. Ishmael's view he is trebly guilty, and
on R. Akiba's view he is doubly guilty.22
Our Rabbis
taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is
not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast
is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? - Rab
said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not
deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said:
Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as
with a child above that.24 What is the basis of their
dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage
in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of
pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he
who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a
passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But
Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie
with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26
It has
been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of
nine years and a day; ____________________ (1) Ibid.
XVIII, 22. (2) Deut. XXIII, 18. (3) I Kings XIV, 24.
Just as abomination applies to sodomy in the latter verse,
so it applies to it in the former too: thus it is as though
the former verse read, There shall be no Sodomite of the
sons of Israel: it is an abomination. And just as the
abomination implicit here applies to both parties, so the
abomination explicitly stated in Lev. XIII, 22 refers
to both. (4) I. e., the niph'al, the letters being the
same, cfa, and cfa,. (5) Ibid. XX, 15. (6) Deut. XIII,
10, referring to a mesith, one who incites to idolatry. (7)
Ex. XXII, 18. (8) As it is taught elsewhere, viz., in Lev.
XX, 15. (9) One of the methods of Talmudic hermenueutics is
to apply a Biblical statement, superfluous in respect of
its own law, to some other subject. (10) Lev. XVIII,
23. (11) Ibid. v. p. 368. n. 1: the same reasoning applying
to bestiality as to pederasty. (12) I.e., though
differently vocalized in order to deduce two
injunctions, it is nevertheless one statement only, so that
a person transgressing these two injunctions violates one
Biblical prohibition only. (13) Not to bestiality at all,
in spite of the fact that this was cited above in this
connection. (14) Ex. XXII, 18. (15) Since it is stated
in Lev. XVIII. (16) I.e., though as shewn, this verse
applies to a passive offender, yet its grammatical
construction speaks of active bestiality. (17) The
reference having been given above. (18) So that all is
deduced from one verse, involving only one penalty. (19)
Since R. Akiba maintains that the prohibition of passive
sodomy is included in active sodomy, it follows that
passive pederasty and bestiality are two distinct offences,
for there are two distinct injunctions. But as R. Ishmael
maintains that the injunction against active sodomy does not
include passive submission, and that the latter, whether in
pederasty or bestiality, is derived from the single
injunction, There shall be no sodomite, the double offence
incurs one penalty only. (20) Ex. XXII, 18. (21) Thus,
this applies to passive bestiality, whilst there shall be
no sodomite applies to passive pederasty. Hence, there
being two separate injunctions for the two offences, a
double punishment is incurred. (22) Thus: R. Abbahu
maintains that on R. Ishmael's view: (i) active pederasty
is forbidden by Thou shalt not lie with mankind; (ii)
active bestiality by Thou shalt not lie with any beast;
(iii) passive pederasty and bestiality by There shall be no
sodomite. Whilst Abaye maintains that on R. Ishmael's view,
(i) active pederasty is derived from Thou shalt not lie
with mankind; (ii) submission thereto from There shall be
no sodomite; and (iii) active and passive bestiality from
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith. (Lev. XVIII, 23) Hence, according to R. Abbabu
and Abaye there are three injunctions for the four
offences. Further, R. Abbahu and Abaye both teach R.
Akiba's view to be that (i) active and passive bestiality
are derived from Thou shalt not lie with mankind as
with womankind; and (ii) active and passive bestiality from
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast. Hence there are two
injunctions for the four offences. (23) The reference is to
the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a, guilt
is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a
minor, i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it
is stated that within this age a distinction is
drawn. (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if
one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt
is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum. (25) At
nine years a male attains sexual matureness. (26) Lev.
XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual
matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of
three
James Trimm
From Vicky Dillen:
Dear James Trimm,
I normally don't respond to
inaccurate information or statements against myself.
However, I felt I should clarify a few inaccuracies in
your emails. Firstly, the web site you quote as being ours,
is not our web site. Ours is < --NOW
http://www.SeekGod.ca/index.htm Secondly the quote about
the child and sex--was taken from a JEWISH website. If you
have a problem with their interpretation of that
Talmud portion, feel free to address the original
source. It is of great interest to me that you only point
out that one particular quote in Sanhedrin 54b, and then
provide the following validation for what was stated in my
article.
23) The reference is to the passive subject of
sodomy. As stated supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the
active participant even if the former be a minor,i.e., less
than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated
that within this age a distinction is drawn. (24) I.e.,
Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed
sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred.
Samuel makes three the minimum. (25) At nine years a
male attains sexual matureness. (26) Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus
the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman,
which is reached at the age of three
There were
several quotes in my articles of a similar nature.
The inclusion of your passages in relation to Sanhedrin 54b
do state that non- sodomy has occured if done to a child
under the age of nine, while "Samuels says three years
minimum." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what seems to be
clearly stated in the information provided by yourself.
Your not saying anything against the other quotes in the
article leads me to believe they are indeed quoted
accurately.
The Babylonian Talmud, the accepted and
preferred version, further teaches that Adam committed
bestiality.
"Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had
sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden
of Eden." 27.
That seems to imply that Adam stayed in
the Garden and was not expelled after the original sin, or
that he was busy committing these acts before the record of
events in Genesis involving the sin that caused both he
and Eve to be expelled. The Talmud further promotes such
uncleanness through obscene teachings regarding bestiality
and sex with children.
"Yebamoth 59b. A woman who
had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a
Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is
also eligible to marry a Jewish priest."
28.
"Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year
old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old)."
29.
"Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as
long as the child is less than nine years old"
30.
Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has
intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."
31.
The footnote for these is, if you have not
noticed is: Michael A. Hoffman II & Alan R. Critchley,
The Campaign for Radical Truth in
History; <http://www.hoffman-info.com>http://www.hoffman-info.com As
stated in my Introduction, I do not agree with the many I have
quoted from and very much strongly disagree with probably
most of the theological positions of the many. However, it
is also duly noted that if any information is proven to
have been deliberately manufactured from any source I have
quoted from, it will be corrected.
I'm not sure
why it's considered anti-Semitism by you to quote from
what many are calling sacred books. You either believe the
content as necessary to be followed or you don't. That is
entirely up to you and each and every person. However, for
us, that means reviewing all content, not just the 'safe'
stuff, but content that obviously was relevant enough to
your sages to be discussed in detail. I doubt very much
that you would suggest to any of your followers that they
avoid reading certain portions of the Talmud or Zohar
because they might not like what it says. This
information is part and parcel of what we were invited to
be part of. We choose not to embrace these books or their
teachings, just as you and others may choose to embrace
these books and their various teachings. That is called
freedom of choice and freedom to believe what you
wish.
Thirdly, since I have had several 'real' Jews
read my web site and claim that they saw no anti-Semitism,
although they shared some concerns, in one case legitimate
concerns, your suggestion that we are anti-Semites
is filled with hollowness. One orthodox Jew, whom I have
corresponded with since April, thanked me for
distinguishing the difference between our beliefs. He also
took the articles to Israel to a 'respected rabbi.' Since
corresponding with Jews, Messianics and other Christians, the
only ones who cry anti-Semitism are the ones who are trying
to mislead Christians into observance of the Jewish law,
Talmud or Zohar--all in the stated goal of becoming a
'better believer', and propagating the elimination of the
use of the terms Jesus Christ and Christian, etc.,
even though Christian is a Biblical term for followers of
Christ. Those same people also seem to not be born-again
believers, nor do they necessarily believe that Jesus
Christ is God come in the flesh, that Jesus Christ is Lord,
but rather, they put forward the concept that He is the
Messiah, meaning the Jewish Old Testament concept, not the
New Testament truth.. As far as your information on the
Star of david--or rather 'star of moloch', your failure to
include the Scriptural passages pertaining to the pagan
worship of Moloch and the related symbol, which people in the
Old and New Testament engaged in, is duly noted. It was
condemned by God, then, and continues so
today..
Thank you for taking the time to write. Since
you have taken the liberty of posting your email to others
and which appears to be the Nazarene and messianic
discussion lists, I will also provide this response to my
web site articles, so there is no misunderstanding of what
is being discussed. V. Dillen
Subject: Re: mis-Quoting Talmud out of Context Date:
Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:11:51 -0500 (CDT) From: James Trimm
<jstrimm@swbell.net> To: vdillen
<vdillen_vdil@qlo.com> CC:
nazarene@nazarene.net
1. I did not deal with each and
every Talmud passage you took out of context because I do
not have time to and once your paper has been shown once to
be taking the Talmud out of context then the whole paper has
been shown to be unreliable.
2. The information I
sent documented and made it clear that the verb "sodomize"
in this passage is PASSIVE and is in context of a section
of Talmud which contrasts PASSIVE and ACTIVE sodomy. Active
sodomy would be to sodomize another person, which an adult
who sodomizes a child is CLEARLY guilty of (and which this
Talmud passage does not contest his obvious guilt for
active Sodomy). Pasive sodomy would be to allow oneself to
be sodomized by another, which is also the sin of sodomy,
but it is PASSIVE sodomy rather than active sodomy. Now an
adult who sodomizes a child is obviously guilty of active
sodomy but he is not guilty of passive sodomy (allowing
another person to sodomize him) since the child is not capable
of actively sodomizing him.
It is clear that this
passage is quoted out of context in your paper so as to
mislead people into believing that the Talmud finds the man
not guilt of active sodomy when the topic is clearly in
context that of passive sodomy. This misleads people into
thinking that Judaism is an evil religion that teaches that
it is OK to sodomize children.
If you believe that
Orthodox Judaism teaches that it is OK to sodomize children
then you are even more deluted than I thought.
James
Trimm
Subject: Star of David Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999
03:23:34 -0500 From: James Trimm
<jstrimm@swbell.net> To:
vdillen_vdil@qlo.com
Actually recently two inscriptions
have been found proving that the Mogen David (which some
call "Star of David") was the seal of state of ancient
Israel.
The first may be found in David Rohl's book
Kings and Pharoh's It is a bass relief sculpture of King
Jehu (one of the righteous kings of Israel) with his men
behind him, paying homage to the King of Assyria who has
conqured him. The relief shows the seal of state of Assyria
over the head of the King of Assyria (the winged solar
disk). King Jehu has the seal of state of Ancient Israel
over his head, the Mogen David.
The second is even
older. It may be found in the book THE NAME OF GOD by James
R. Harris p. 205. It dates to the time of the Judges and was
found at Gibeon. It is a Mogen David with YAH written in
Hebrew in it.
Some have pointed to the "Star" (Hebrew:
"Kokba") in Amos to defame Jews for using this symbol.
However the "Star of David" is actually in Hebrew the MOGEN
DAVID ("SHIELD of David"). NOT the KOKBA DAVID ("Star of
David") . It is only in English that the MOGEN DAVID has
been mistakenly called the "Star of
David".
Moreover, regardless of what other uses this
symbol may have had, the archaeological evidence is clear.
The Mogen David WAS the seal of state of ancient Israel,
even under the righteous King Jehu. Moreover it was used as
a symbol by Hebrews in connection with worshiping YAH as early
as the time of the Judges.
James
Trimm ============================================== He
who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found
he will be amazed, and having been amazed he will
reign, and having reigned he will rest. - The Goodnews
according to the
Hebrews ============================================== The
Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box
471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A
nonprofit organization supported by freewill
offerings Check out our e-mail discusion
groups. ============================================== The
International Nazarene Beit
Din http://www.nazarene.net/beitdin ============================================== International
Nazarene Congregation
Directory http://www.nazarene.net/directory.htm?
Do You KNOW Jesus
Christ? | |
Now is the time
to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. "Behold now is the
accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation."
2Corinthians 6:2
If you read only one
article on this website, please let it be:
God's Simple
Plan of Salvation. It concerns the most important
decision you will ever make in your life! Don't let this
opportunity to be saved pass you by.
If you don't
know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and would like some
help understanding His gift of eternal salvation, please
contact us. Saying a prayer won't save you. Prayer is
merely expressing to God how you feel. Believing and repenting
are just the beginning of walking with Jesus Christ as Lord
and Savior.
|