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 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
To: vdillen <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

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?

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.