Come and Hear™ to increase interfaith understanding http://www.come-and-hear.com This page has been cached from its original location to ensure availability for future students of Come and Hear™

Home |  | Introduction |  | Research |  | Encouragement |  | Contact |  | Copyright |  | Search
Research> OWR >Pentecostal ...Hebrew Movements
Back to Moves | Back to Hebrew Roots | Back to OWR | Back To Index
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.