My comments are in blue.

Subject:  Re: My statements
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:31:23 -0500
From: purnhrt <purnhrt@flash.net>
To: James Trimm <jstrimm@home.com>
References: 1
 
 
 
 
 

James Trimm wrote:

  >So where James do you find the justification for your statements?
  >I never said the things you said I did.
  >I never gave any indication of believing
  >any of the things you said I did. I never posted anything anti-semitic.

  _________________________________________________

   posted 08-17-1999 09:25 PM

   I would like to post a rebuttal to James Trimm's slanderous accusations,

  against Pete Vacca and Dan Chaput. First off, Pete Vacca was not even there
  at the conference. He sent his speech, with another member of the Assembly,
  since he could not be there. Therefore, the paper was read, exactly as it
  was written and Pete could not explain, defend or correct any
  misconceptions, that listeners might have had.
  Second, the the paper was on green ears verses the equinox, to determine
  the month of Abib. Pete Vacca's contention was with the Karaites determing
  of the month of Abib, in the manner they did this year. I am getting a copy
  of this paper, and any one who wants to know exactly what was read, can
  find out. Not quotes taken out of context, without questioning the author.
   Which brings me to my third point, concerning James's slander of Pete.
  Pete told me that James Trimm and He have never even met. James is making
  comments about a man, on public forums and over listservers, when he does
  not even know him personally.
   Concerning Dan, and the book Christianity Unmasked, again, Dan was not
  approached by James to clarify or question anything. They also have not met
  or spoken to each other.
   Chapter 12 of this book, is about Judeo-Christianity. It states that the
  term is an oxymoron. Christianity is against Judaism, therefore you cannot
  use that term for believers of Yahuweh/Yhwhists. It is incongruous. Dan
  stated, not knowing if James read the whole book, that James took the parts
  that he might have read, out of context. The book is about Christianity,
  not Judaism. Chapter 12 also, defines Semitic. This involvs ALL the
  descendants of SHEM. That includes Aram, Ashshur, Persia, and since Abraham
  was Semetic, then Ishmael, would also be Semitic. The term anti-semitic
  does not mean against Jews alone.
   Both of these men stated that James did not contact them to talk with them
  before he publicly spread his slander. Both stated that he never came to
  them, as a brother in Yahuweh, about this matter. He went against Torah and
  slandered them.
   Both of these men are Torah observant. They follow True Torah. They walk
  in the ways of Yahuweh. They do make a distinction between that which is
  Torah of Yahuweh and that which is Talmud and Tradition of Judaism. They
  follow what is in Scripture. This does not make them anti-semetic; anti-
  mens traditions, maybe, but not anti-semitic.
   What I would like to know James, is why, having come from a unity
  conference, you sought to divide the Yhwhistic community in this fashion,
  by slandering men you have not even spoken to, on these matters?

Posting that I checked into a situation, that I spoke with the men at length and asked them numerous
questions, does not make me anti-semitic. It makes me responsible. To prevent inquisitions, witch hunts,
concentration camps, McCarthyism. Some people have a propensity to react, instead of invesitgating.
They accuse instead of trying to clarify, they attack instead of trying to correct if they see a wrong. I check
things out. If you are saying that by doing so, that I am anti-semitic, then we can take this debate to the
Assembly and let them judge me in this matter as well. Many of them already have and said that your
statements are groundless. By the way, a number of them are Jews, real Jews. Not this fake lost tribes or I
found a relative Jews, that cant prove anything. These Jewish people read what I said and said that I was
not anti-semitic. I have even had Rabbis read it and they agreed. And again, James, they are real Rabbis
that earned their title through legitimate sources. I agreed to a discussion, so you could see what I said.
You are in a loop, implying that I said something I did not.
 
 

  ________________________________________

   posted 08-25-1999 03:18 PM

   James you left out the quote by Jew concerning themselves.
   "Consider the quote from a Jewish author, 'You make much noise and fury
  about the undue Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very
  good; granted your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to
  our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws, and
  your governments, and the very thoughts you think everyday?' This statement
  was made in 1928 by Marcus Eli Ravage in Century Magazine, Feb. 1928, p.
  347." This is not my belief and it is clear that I am inserting something you left out. I merely showed
  that you did not quote all the sources he mentioned, that you convienently left out the Jewish sources
  that said the same thing. This in no way was an acceptanace of the statment. I dont believe that the Jews
  control the whole world or even America.

  ____________________________________________

  Now Kathryn's Website says:

  As to the material posted toward Dan Chaput, I addressed the issues in the
  other posts. I have never endorsed Dan's book. I read chapter 12, and... I
  think things could have been worded better, ....

  James immediately tried to get Dan removed from his position as US
  distributor of the ISR Scriptures. I contacted them and let them know of
  the forum and what was taking place. To my knowledge their has not been a
  reconciliation between Dan and James. But ISR investigated the situation.
  Dan is still a distributor of ISR publications. How is it anti-semitic to let other groups know the whole
  story and to invesigate fully, so that they would not just take your word for it. Perhaps your problem
  with me, is not just that I disagreed with you and stood in your way in a smear campaign, that I called
  you to accountability in your behavior, but that another group checked into this and didnt see fit to fire
  Dan, which you wanted.

  _________________________________________

  MY COMMENTARY:

   Kathry said of Pete and Dan:

          Chapter 12 also, defines Semetic. This involvs
          ALL the descendants of SHEM. That includes Aram,
          Ashshur, Persia, and since Abraham was Semetic,
          then Ishmael, would also be Semetic. THe term anti-semetic
          does not mean against Jews alone.

  Here you seem to buy into the Anti-Semite definition of Anti-Semitism
  which Dan gives but which is not accurate (just look up the word
  "anti-semite" in the dictionary) I never bought into his definition. I stated then what Dan sited. I told
  you in my reply to you, that I listed the websters that I had and it listed Jew 2nd, after it listed
  descendant of Shem. It also listed a third, which was broader. I pointed out that anti in front of any of
  them changed the meaning and asked you once again to define your terms, which you refused.

  You also said:

          Both of these men are Torah observant. THey follow True Torah.
          They walk in the ways of Yahuweh. They do make a distinction
          between that which is Torah of Yahuweh and that which is
          Talmud and Tradition of Judaism. They follow what is in Scripture.
          This does not make them anti-semetic; anti- mens traditions,
          maybe, but not anti-semetic. ...

  (off topic at the conference Dan wore not tzitzit and scoffed at my wearing
  tzitzit.)

  As I have shown Dan's book goes WAY beyond being anti-Talmud and
  anti-Tradition of Judaism.  He teaches that:

          Jews are the synagogue of Satan,

          run the world

          and are the literal unredeemable seed of Satan.

  Now since you do not to seem to acknowledge that these things are anti
  Semitic, you in general seemed to defend Dan's book as not anti-semitic I
  was led to believe that you are yourself an anti-semite.  In fact you
  quoted and used Dan's anti-semite definition of anti-semite in your post.
  Moreover rather than says that the IDEA that:

          Jews are the synagogue of Satan,

          run the world

          and are the literal unredeemable seed of Satan.

  are anti-semitic IDEAS  you seem to say that the book which teaches them is
  NOT anti-semitic
  and that it should be better worded.  These ideas are anti Semitic
  REGARDLESS of how they are worded.

  OK I will now let you "straighten me out" and let me know where I have
  "gone wrong"
  with this thinking.

  Perhaps if you could resure me that you find these ideas anti-semitic
  REGARDLESS
  of how they are worded. As I showed in my e-mail to you, I stated then and I reaffirm it now, I did not
  support Dans book. I merely typed out the chapter for people to see for themselves and to see that you
  had, on a number of occasions misquoted him and selectively chose passages to make it say something
  other than what it said. Since you are convinced of your own theory. I leave you to it. I can see that you
  have no intention of repenting, apologizing and issuing a retraction. I am once again taking this to the
  Beyth. My words, statements and beliefs stand on their own and they will be my defense, as they have
  been. I will not discuss this any further with you. You are insisting that I am an anti-semite because I
  got in your way. You do not truly seek shalom,  but slander. Kathryn

  Study Torah with SANJ Mitvah Club
  http://www.nazarene.net/MitzvahClub.htm

--
YHWH bless you and guard you. YHWH make His face to shine upon you and show you favor. YHWH
lift up His face upon you and give you shalom.