Subject: my statements
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:49 -0500
From: purnhrt <email@example.com>
James, here are the posts that I made at EliYahs.
" 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 Semetic. I did not state that this was my
definition of semitic, I clearly stated that this was Chapter 12's definition. 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.
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- semetic.
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
"James, I have some questions I would like you to answer
please. How do you define anti-semitism?
How do you define Jew? Under whose authority are you and what accountability do you have? Under
what standards are the believers in Yahuweh and Yahusha' HaMashiach, united and who do you consider
outside that fellowship? What do you consider the stick of Yahudah and What the stick of Ephrayim?
What do you consider the joining of these two? These questions would help to explain your actions
against Daniel Chaput and Pete Vacca. Shalom, Kathryn " Here I am clearly asking you to define the
terms that you are using.
James, I didn't ask what Websters defined anti-semitism
as or who a Jew ws, I asked how you defined
You say that you are under the authority of the International
Nazarene Beit Din. Who founded this group
and what role do you have in it? What does this group advocate?
Let me get this straight. So you are saying, according
to your Websters definition, that anyone who
speaks against Judaism or a Jew, is being anti-semetic and de-unifies Ephrayim and Yahudah? Is that
correct?And this determines that they are outside the fellowship of Yahuweh and Yahusha'?
Who is of the House of Yahudah and who is of the House of
Ephrayim? Shalom, Kathryn " Once again I
am trying to get YOU to define the terms that you are using.
James, I speak, read and write English very well,
hence the capitalizing of a word that requires it in our
English langauge. I asked for your view and application of the word, not a dictionary entry. But since
you want to use dictionaries, I will. See, I teach Latin and Greek roots to my kids, and I know that anti- is a
prefix that means against. Websters anti- a learned borrowing from Greek meaning "against," "opposite
Now Websters also shows Semite as - 1. a member of any of
the peoples supposedly descended from
Shem, the eldest son of Noah. 2. a Jew 3. a member of any of the various ancient and modern peoples
originating in SW Asia, including the Sumerians, Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews and
Arabs. This is the definition from my Websters dictionary. I list it and show that the prefix anti in front of
all three references, gives a different meaning. If you will notice, no. 1 is not Jew, but a descendant of
Noach's son Shem.
So you can take the prefix anti- and place it with 1, 2,
or 3, and come up with anti-semite. Again I ask you,
how do you define it? So I asked you again to define the terms you were using.
Your attempt to cast dispersions on my ability to read,
will not work. I am trying to find out exactly what
it is that you believe. Get on the same page, so to speak. I try to get things clarified, before I begin
discussions with someone, to avoid misunderstandings and mistakes. That, I assumed was common
courtesy. I was trying to get clarification so there would not be misunderstandings and you would not
So the authority you are under is one that was established
by you and you are the president of? Who
were the other two Torah observant men? You say nine, yet the site you listed shows seven, with two
friends of the court, who are not able to vote. Who are the other two? What gives you the authority to set
up a Beit Din and establish halakah?
You say, "The beit din system is both the biblical way and
the Jewish way for Nazarene Judaism to
establish halacha and govern itself." Since you say that this is the Jewish way and advocate Nazarene
Judaism, you would then be acknowledged by and accepted by Nazarene Judaism, correct?
No, not all Websters dictionaries are the same. The later
the year, the more liberal the definition. I have a
copy of the original Websters dictionary, written in the 1800's and there are major differences.
I did not say that Websters said anything about deunification
of the two houses. I used your listing of
anti-semetic, due to your not listing your own, in place of the rest of the statement. Adding your A + B +
C. Since you are dancing all around this issue, why don't you just explain it yourself. I kept asking what
your terms were. What do you, James Trimm and not Websters, define who an anti-semite is, and what it
is that they do that deunifies the houses of Yahudah and Ephrayim. Does speaking against Judaism
qualify as anti-semite? Does not accepting Talmud as equal to Torah qualify as anti-semite? Does anyone
who disagrees with the standard practices of Jews, rabbinic traditions, that do not accept Yahusha'
HaMashiach and His teachings qualify as anti-semite? What exactly are you saying? I am asking specific
questions and giving you the opportunity to clearly answer and you are dancing all around. What is it
that you believe? I asked specific questions about actions, and asked if you defined these as being
THe House of Yahudah were those that descended from the
Tribe of Yahudah, the southern Kingdom.
The House of Ephrayim were those that descended from the other 10 tribes, the northern Kingdom,
which Ephrayim was the head of. Nowhere in Scripture does it say anything about Jewish followers of
Yahuweh verses non-Jewish followers of Yahuweh. Why would you make a distinction that Scripture,
nor Orthodox halacha does. According to Scripture, when a non Hebrew, a Goy, becomes a believer in
Yahuweh, they are reckoned as Yisrael.
BeMidbar [Numbers] 15:15,16, " 'One law is for you
of the assembly and for the ger [sojourner] who
sojourns with you - a law forever throughout your generations. As you are, so is the ger before Yahuweh.
One Torah and one judgement is for you and for the ger who sojourns with you.' "
Yeshayahu [Isaiah] 14:1, " 'Because Yahuweh has compassion
on Yaaqob, and will again choose Yisrael,
and give them rest in their own land. And the ger will join them and be attached to the Beyth Yaaqob [
House of Yaaqob].' "
Yechezqel [Ezekiel] 47:21-23, " 'And you will divide this
land among yourselves according to the tribes of
Yisrael. And it will be that you divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the geriym who
sojourn in your midst and who bear children among you. And they will be to you as native-born among
the sons of Yisrael - with you they have an inheritance in the idst of the tribes of Yisrael. And it will be
that in whatever tribe the ger sojourns, there you give him his inheritance,' declares the Adonaiy
Ephesians 2:19, " 'So then you are no longer aliens and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with Yahuwehs
people and members of Yahuwehs household.' "
"Most geirim converted, which is why geir eventually blurred
with "convert." However, when the geir
converts, Orthodox halakhah then recognizes him or her as a Jew(ess). The Jew(ess) -- whom Orthodox
halakhah prohibits from even being reminded of their non-Jewish past -- is then no longer a geir(ah). "
So where do you get this House of Yahudah being believing
Jews and the House of Ephrayim being the
non-Jewish believers? Shalom, Kathryn"
James, you did not answer my questions concerning
who is a Jew and anti-semitism. Again, I point out
that you have not answered my questions about your definitions of a Jew and anti-semitism. Nor did
you answer my questions about who the other two men were that co founded this Beit Din. You did not
answer any of my specific questions concerning specific acts, if the were deemed anti-semetic by you.
You did not answer my questions about where you got the idea for a House of Yahudah being Jewish
believers and the House of Ephraim being non-Jewish believers. Of all my questions, you chose to
answer only the one concerning your acceptance as a legitimate Beit Din.
James, Here is a quote from an e-mail, in which I
inquired about your group, its recognition and
authority, to Yirmiyahu Ben David, of the Netzarim in Israel.
Shalom from the Netzarim in Raanana, Israel Kathryn.
>Contact: = I am writing to see if a group, that originates out of Hurst,
Texas (close >to Dallas), is recognized by you and Jerusalem, as being
a legitimate Nestariym >branch. It is called the Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism, headed by >James Trimm. He has
set up national and international associations, with other >Messianic
groups. He established a Beit Din. He promotes this group, as the
authority, >in early C.E. history, concerning the practices and beliefs of
the earliest Believers in >Yahusha' HaMashiach. I am curious if you are
aware of him and his group, and if >you recognize him as a branch of
yours. Thank you for your time.
"We are the only followers of Yehoshua the Mashiakh recognized and
accepted in Orthodox Judaism and the State of Israel. None of the
organizations you listed have any legitimate connection to Orthodox
Judaism, the State of Israel or us. They are illegitimate and should be
It seems like you are creating your own religion, your own Beit Din, of
which you are the Nasi (prince) and establishing your own halacha.
You are determining who is acceptable to Yahuweh and who is not.
THose that disagree with you are kicked out of your organization,
shunned at your lists and when they are outside of your reach, you call
them anti-semetic and try to get them ostracized by the rest of your
Maybe it is something they are putting in the water, down here in
Texas, that breeds this form of cultic sectarianism. I have my own well,
literally and figuratively. I look to Yahuweh and His Torah as my
authority and the Way (Yahusha') to walk (halacha) as my path. I
drink deeply from His well of Salavation. One that is without cost, I
might add. The Scriptures are quite clear if you have eyes to see and
ears to hear, and do not need rabbinic or your brand of halacha to
"expound" upon them. Funny, but I thought Yahuweh said that was
His Ruach's job.
So far, you have shown me nothing of a Scripture basis, to defend your
accusations and your position.
Why is Chris Lingle no longer with you?
I did not misquote you, only pointed out that the definition
was from your Websters, and not your own,
which was what I had originally asked you. You are still dancing around those questions. Again, I am
trying to get you to define your terms and you wont do it.
When you state that the House of Yahudah is Jewish believers,
what does that leave the House of
Ephrayim? You are trying to sidestep things. What do you view Ephraimite, if non-Jewish? You are still
separating, making divisions, and sectioning (sectarianism) those that belong to Yahuweh. You have no
basis Scripturally for that.
I do not feel that Yirmiyahu's attitude toward your
group is a non issue. It goes to prove that I am not
the only one that is questioning your authority. ANd when did numbers mean anything? Yahusha' said
that the road to destruction was broad and the gate wide and that many would enter through it -
meaning majority and the road to life was narrow and the gate small and only a few would find it –
meaning minority. So don't flaunt numbers with me. I left that behind when I dumped Christianity.
You seem to be setting yourself up as some High Priest of
Nazareneism, Yhwhism, Judaism, etc. What I
am doing is questioning your authority to do so. What gives you the right to dictate to others what the
Truth is and how to walk in it. What gives you the right to determine what parts of Judaism are
acceptable and everyone who disagrees is anti-semetic? This is part of what I tried to get you to define.
You seemed to arbitrarily to decide what was acceptable and what was not and if anyone contradicted
you, you labeled them anti-semitic. What gives you the right to say that Talmud is equal to Torah and
anyone who disagrees is anti-semetic? What gives you the right to say that if someone disagrees with
you, and you label them anti-semetic, that you can get others to do your bidding and keep them from
future conferences and such? I have and still have serious problems with your determination of what is
anti-semitic and what is not.
These are but a handful of questions. It was easy for you
to put up accusations all over the net, but it
seems difficult for you to substantiate them, most importantly from the Scriptures. I am not one of your
"yes men" at your lists. I don't take "because" for an answer. I want to see the Scriptural basis for these
accusations and other statements. Shalom, Kathryn "
"James, Why didn't Lashon Hara stop you when you started
going on about anti-semitism concerning
Pete and Dan, because they have points of disagreement with Judaism. You posted it here, on all your
list servers and who knows where else. Why was the evil tongue not kept in check then?" This is a valid
James, after typing the rest of Chapter 12 today, I called
Christ Lingle about your statement, "The beit-din
was first founded by three Torah- observant men. I was one of them. It has since grown to nine (see
http://www.nazarene.net/beitdin ) I serve as Nasi (president) however I only have one vote." Chris
emphatically denies that he was a cofounder. He states that it was your idea and you approached Eric
Lindquist and him, about their participation. Chris did not accept your offer of Av Beit Din (like second
in command to your Nasi).He even felt that the title Nasi was inappropriate.
By the way, Nasik (nun, samech, yod, kaph) means prince,
from the root, NSK, which means to pour out,
as in anointing. Nasia (nun, sin, yod, aleph) means prince, post Biblical Hebrew - chief of the 'Sanhedrin',
patriarch and New Hebrew - president. [Derived from NSA and literally meaning 'lifted up, exalted'].
So I ask you, are you equating yourself with a prince, an
anointed one, chief of the Sanhedrin, a patriarch
or an exalted one?
To start an organization, set yourself up as Nasi and gather
others around you, sounds like you are the
one in authority, rather than under someones authority. So again, I ask, under what authority do you
determine that someone is anti-semetic and should be ostrasized, and counted as an enemy of YHWH, if
they do not agree with Judaism and the Talmud?
Here are some Hebrew and Israel quotes for you.
Romans 11:1, this is Shaul talkng, " 'I say then,
has Yahuweh rejected His people? Let it not be! For I also
am from Yisrael, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Binyamin.' "
Yahuchanan 1:47, Yahusha' saying of Nethanel, " 'Yahusha'
saw Nethanel coming toward Him, and said
of him, "See, truly a son of Yisrael, in whom is no deceit!" ' "
Luke 1:16, speaking of Yahuchanan the Immerser prior to
his conception, " 'And he will turn any of the
sons of Yisrael to Yahuweh.' "
Romans 11:25,26, " 'For I do not wish you to be ignorant
of this secret, brothers, otherwise you should be
wise in your own estimation, that the hardening in part has come over Yisrael, until the completeness of
the Goyim has come in. Ans so all Yisrael will be saved, as it has been written, "The Deliverer will come
out of Tsiyon, and He will turn away wickedness from Yaaqob." ' "
THere are bunches of Yisrael and Hebrew passages.
I for one, feel that it was better to move it from this forum, to a private one. But, like Don, I feel that
Trimms other posts, which were rebuttals to Chapter 12, should have been moved as well. I do
appreciate that they were not simply deleted. Thank you Elijah.
I prefer a site to study. It was not my intention for such
a debate to begin. But when accusations of men
came up, that did not know they were here and could not defend themselves, and no one seemed to
care what was happening, or check things out, I stepped into the breach to do something about this. I do
not feel comfortable with the fact that Trimms multiple threads on the attack, were allowed and not
moved, but when I posted his call for back up, then it gets moved right away. Why wasn't the subject
moved in the first few days of it originating? This makes me question things. Especially since Yirmeyah
was replaced as administrator. The impression it gives, is one of politics.
This is Elijahs forum and whether we approve of his
decisions or not, whether something looks just or
not, it is his to do with as he pleases. IF we feel slighted or unjustly dealt with, we have the choice of
leaving and frequenting another forum, or starting our own. There are plenty of free list servers available for someone to do that. The administrator decisions are his, and the decisions about whether to remain here are ours.
We should concentrate on studies here, since that is what
it was set up for. Shalom, Kat "
"James, I did not approve of it being moved, to hide
anti-semitism in a dark corner, but to agree, that this
forum was created for study, not propaganda and accusations. You have your own lists that you can do
that on. What is not being hidden by your posts, is your arrogance and support of Judaism, and your
twisting and manipulating of Scriptures, to make it appear that Judaism is the True Faith and anyone
that disagress is an anti-semite. I have a number of your posts at the nazarene forum and you continue to
make comments along this line. No where in Tanak does it state that Judaism is the true faith or that
Efrayim will be converted to Yahudah. It says that they will be joined together as they originally were.
No one more dominant than the other. To believe that Rabbinic Judaism is not the "True Faith", is not
anti-semitism. I believe in the Beyth YHWH and I follow His Way - HaDerek. I do not follow the tradition
of any group of men. That does not make me anti-semitic.
I have approved Elijah's decision to remove the posters
of an extreme amount of the Quran also. Or
when people were promoting Christianity and pagan terms for Yahuweh. I didn't come here to study
Islam or Christianity or Judaism. I came here to study with others, the Hebraic Scriptures of Yahuweh.
If I were hiding anything, I would not have typed
Petes speech, in its entirety, nor Chapter 12 and sent it
to anyone that wa interested. I didn't pick and choose, certain phrases, to make something appear, what
it was not. I believe and strive for truth. Nothing was being hidden here. Kathyrn " I typed out that chapter so people could see that you had taken some things out of context. I gave them the whole thing so they could read for themselves, call Dan if they had any questions, but to check it out and not take your chopped up word for it. That does not make me anti-semitic, it makes me thorough and responsible.
This was just forwarded to me. It originates from James Trimm to the
"The anti-semite "Yahwists" (not all Yahwists are
anti-semites) are giving me a hard time on the Eliyah
web-based discusion group at: http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-
They are DEFENDING Dan Chaput's anti Semitic book which I have been writing about.
I would apreciate any help from any who feel a desire to speak their Mind on the issue.
Just go to the Home Page Discusion forum and look at these threads:..."
Are you calling me an anti-semite "Yahwist" James?
And who else is lumped into your classification,
just because they don't agree with you. You seem to be quick to accuse and label people.
I am not anti-semetic. I believe in Yahuweh and the
Mashiach that He sent to redeem us from our sins,
Yahusha' ben Yahuweh. I believe in following the Way of Yahuweh and observing the Torah, which He
gave, observing Shabbath, the Feasts in Scripture. I believe in being immersed in His Name. I believe,
that Goyim that turn from their sins to Yahuweh are grafted into the Olive Tree of ISRAEL. That all those
grafted in, become of the Household of Yahuweh.
What I don't believe in, is that Talmud=Torah. This does
not make me anti-semitic. The Tsadukiym and
the Qaraiym also believed this. There are even other sects of Yahudiym that did not agree with this.
I don't believe that speaking out against Judaism
makes me, or others, anti-semetic. If somethig in
Judaism and contradicts Thorah and I speak out against that, that in no way makes me anti-semitic.
I don't believe that a Jew, born as such, automatically
receives salvation, just because he is a Jew. Anyone
of Jewish descent has to turn from their sins, accept Yahusha' as HaMashiach and walk in the ways of
Yahuweh, like the rest of us. According to Thorah and the Testimony of Yahusha`, it is quite clear that
birth means nothing in the matter of salvation. Even if a Ibriym were to not believe in YHWH or His
Mashiyach, Yahusha`, they could not be saved. ANd if a Goy, does believe YHWH and Yahusha`, and
follows the Way of YHWH, they are adopted into the Beyth YHWH and are considered as the native. One
Thorah for both the native and the Ger that dwells with them (Yisrael).
I don't beleive in being against Jews because they are Jewish
or Goyim because they are Goyim. Racism
goes both ways, unfortunately. I am not a racist of any kind, nor have I ever been. My parents raised me
in the military where there were many ethnicites all around. I have no prejudice against any group,
whether from race or belief. I judge men by their actions, not what group they are with.
You came to this forum with the accusations against Pete
and Dan. Having spoken with Dan before, I
called to get his view. Then I called Pete. Both of those men, said the same thing, that they are not against
Jews, but against Judaism and Talmud equaling Torah. I was responsible to check this matter out and not
take your word for it. That is what I did.
I got the book and the speech and typed them up for
people to see in what context their comments were
made in, believing that you have taken things out of context. I gave people the chance to see for
You have started thread after thread, on this forum,
to continue your attack against these two men, and
defend Judaism, and when other people question you, you start calling them anti-semite "Yahwists" and
call for reinforcements to defend you.
If what you stood on was Torah, Torah would defend
you, but you are standing on Talmud and that is
not the foundation of the Beyth Yahuweh. Yahusha', the Word of Yahuweh, the Torah made flesh, is the
foundation. The same Mashiach who said that He did not come to abolish Torah and that not one yod or
one taggin would disappear from the Torah. The same Mashiach that rebuked the Parushiym and
Sopheriym, calling them hypocrites and said that in vain they taught the mitswoth of the beniy adam
[sons of MEN]. Saying that they set aside the commands of Yahuweh in order to guard their traditions,
that they made the word of Yahuweh null through their traditions which had been handed down to them.
If you stand on the Torah of Yahuweh, you would need no
back up. An onslaught of your rabbinical
judaism will never stand against True Torah. "
" James, I never defended Christianity Unmasqued.
I stated to people that I had not read the book yet,
only Chapter 12. I typed it up for people to read the enitre context in which it was written. I even stated
that he had written much about the lost ten tribes and that I had not studied this subject yet, and could
not therefore, make any opinions on that subject. This si still true. I have not read the rest of the book.
And no where in all my posts do I defend that book.
What I am defending, is your accusing them of anti-semitism,
which they assured me they were not. I
have met anti-semites and they are not the least bit afraid to tell you that they hate Jews. They are quite
proud in fact. Pete and Dan did not say they hated Jews. THey did state that they were against Judaism
and Talmud=Torah. THis is why I made available Petes speech and Chapter 12, for those that wanted to
see the entire context. I believe you have taken things out of context. Where I may not necessarily agree
with their wording, at times, I see that by reading the ENTIRE speech or Chapter, that they did not have
the intention of anti-semitism, but being against Judaism. I was responsible and checked with them. I
read what they had and asked questions to clarify any misunderstandings. They made quite clear that
what they were speaking and writing against was Rabbinical Judaism. That is not anti-semitism, as I
stated before. I still have not really studied about the lost tribes thing, but what I have read of it, I dont
agree with. I do not agree with replacement theology or British Israelism.
I got in touch with them and asked them questions
about all this, something you should have done
before starting a smear campaign against them. But since you did not, and they were not aware of your
posts at Elijahs, to defend or explain themselves, I stepped in the breach to get this situation clarified.
You on the other hand, did not care to get anything
clarified and insisted that you had the right and
authority to do as you pleased. So then I questioned your right and your authority, which you still have
not answered to my satisfaction, based on Torah.
Now as to the subject, which you have brought up about anyone
who says that the Jews are the seed of
Satan, as being anti-semetic; I did not say that, nor would I blanketly says so. THere are qualifications
that go with that statement. Again, I say that I never said that and you wont see it in my posts because I
didnt write it either, nor do I BELIEVE it and nothing that I have written would make anyone think that I
In Yahuchanan 8, Yahusha', Himself, in a discussion
with the Yahudiym, states that His Father,
Yahuweh, was not the same Father as those that did not believe in Him (Yahusha'). He goes on to say
that the unbelieving Yahudiym would love Him (Yahusha') if their father were Yahuweh, but since it is
not, they don't. He says that they are of their father, the devil, who was a murderer and a liar from the
The qualification is that of being an unbelieving Jew. An
unbelieving Jew, being one that does not believe
that Yahusha' was the Ben Yahuweh, the Mashiach that Yahuweh sent and all Yisrael was waiting for.
Now, you cannot tell me that Yahusha' is anti-semetic.
THough the Parushiym and Sopheriym accused
Him of being demon possessed, so I quess that a person could accuse Him of being ant-semetic, but it
would not be true. I hold to this belief, that those that are not of Yahuweh and His Son, Yahusha'
HaMashiach, are Their enemies, until such time as they repent from their sins and turn to Yahuweh and
believe in His Son, as They have stated in Scripture. This hold true of the Goyim as well. I make myself
very clear that according to the Testimonies of Yahusha`, anyone who does not believe in YHWH and/or
Yahusha` as Mashiyach is an enemy until such time as they repent and follow Him. This is in accordance
with the Tanak as well.
You can call me what you want. Yahuweh will stand as a witness
between the two of us in this matter. By
the Scripture you can not truthfully label me that. So your words fall to the ground and are of no effect to
me. YHWH has been a witness in this matter then and now. YOu still have no justification for your lies. I
never stated anything anti-semitic, nor do I believe anything anti-semitic.
This thread was not about Christianity Unmasqued, or I would
have titled it as such. But about your
calling those of us at Elijah's forum, who did not agree with you, "anti-semetic Yhwhist's." Again, when
confronted with an issue that you do not want to truthfully answer, you avoid the issue and try to blow
smoke and divert attention to something else. You cannot defend your actions, which are getting worse
with every post you put up, with Torah and I do not acknowlege your self appointed authority, or your
Talmud to do so. Your arguments do not hold water, hence your need for backup. You did this again to
me, when I posted the evidence that you were Rabbi Yosef and under that name, you did advocate the
Book of Mormon. I did not deserve your attack on my name and character then, nor do I now. I do
deserve an apology and a retraction.
I find your behavior to be poor character, for one who says
that he is a leader of others. I fear what you
are leading these people to. We are to look to Yahusha' as our Rab [Great] Shepherd and the Torah,
which He teaches, to lead us. Not one that tears at the sheep and promotes sectarianism instead. Kathryn " I am afraid that that opinion still stands after all of this. You did not behave righteously in the matter a year
ago and you did not do so again this time.
"Joel, if you will check, "Unity COnference, a Jewish Perspective",
you will see that I have been asking
James to define the terms, himself. Perhaps if you ask, he might do it. Shalom, Kathryn " Someone else
was even trying to get you to define terms and you did not do so for them either.
Eric, So you are the back up. Welcome to the discussion.
Perhaps you would like to go back and read an
article that James sent out on one of his lists.
Subject: [moedim] Intercalation
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:58:57 -0500
From: James Trimm
THE SECRET OF THE INTERCALATION
OF THE HEBREW CALENDAR
by James Trimm
HOW MANY TORAHS
"Before we can answer the issue of the intercalation of the Hebrew
calendar we must
first understand another issue. How many Torahs did Moses receive
on Mt. Sinai? The Torah says: These are the decrees, the ordinances,
and the TORAHS that YHWH gave, betwen Himself and the Children
of Israel, at Mount Sinai, through Moses. (Lev. 26:46)
This passage indicates that Moses received more than one Torah on
Mount Sinai. Most people know that Moses received a Written Torah
on Mount Sinai but few know that Moses received an Oral Torah as
well. When Moses received the written Torah he also received an oral
Torah which was a companion to the written Torah. There is a great
deal of evidence to prove the existance of the Oral Torah that was
received with the written Torah."
"There are also many commands within the Written Torah which
cannot be kept without an Oral Torah to clarify them:"
"All of these unclear statements in the written Torah without an oral
Torah while the Scriptures tell us that YHWH's teachings to Israel
have always been clear (Is. 45:19). The written Torah without the Oral
Torah is so unclear that it simply could not be observed."
"Torah observance cannot be accomplished without the oral Torah
which has been passed from generation to generation by the Jews but
lost to Ephraim. Thus Paul writes:"
Perhaps you two would like to huddle up and determine what is to be
what, so that you don't contradict each other. James is clearly saying
that you cannot possible follow Torah, without Talmud and that thee
were two Torahs (Toroth). Now, I know that the word Torah means
several things. It represnts the 5 books of Moshe ( the Pentateuch), it
represents the Law, HaTorah, it also means teachings. You can have
laws and teachings, that are plural. But James is manipulating the
Hebrew to justify the authority of Talmud. If you do not feel that is is a
grave error, perhaps we could put it forth to the body of believers and
see if any of them buy into this flagrant rabbinicism.
Ironically Yahusha' also equates UNBELIEVING JEWS with the
offspring of HaSatan. Yahuchanan also called them a brood of adders.
THey were also called white washed tombs that were filled with
hypocrisy and torahlessness, snakes, hypocrites, sons of Gei
Hinnom, fools and blind guides, murders of the nebiym of Yahuweh,
etc. You want to label terms like that as anti-semetic, then you label
Yahusha' HaMashiach Ben Yahuweh for being so. Personally, I would
rather keep company with Him, than people that do not know how to
put a reign on their tongue or rightly divide the word of Yahuweh.
Eric wrote, "He actually equates Jews with the offspring of HaSatan!!"
Dan was quoting a scripture and referring to unbelieveing Jews that rejected Yahusha`.
My point was that if the verse that Dan referred to was considered anti-semitic, Yahusha` said
alot mor than that. For that matter, the "Woes" sound a lot like the writings of YeshaYahu. He also called
the unbelieving Yahudiym offspring of liars and such.
Dan quoted a few portions of Talmud. Perhaps even quoting someones
quote, I don't know, but those would not be the portions that I would
have chosen. I have whole passages, not a few verses here and there,
that obviously contradict Torah. Now if you would like to debate
Talmud verses Torah, I can show you much more damning evidence
of the contradictions in Talmud. What Dan wrote was peanuts
compared to the weight of all that there is.
Young, impressionable followers reading that book, would not seek
out violence against Jews, because of the statements made in it. What it
would cause them to do, was to NOT be seeking out organizations
such as y'alls, that promote Judaism and would not be pouring out
money in support of such. Perhaps that is the greater worry you fear.
Lack of support. No where was Dan writing to seek out vengeanse or violence against Jews. He
was simply saying to those coming out of Christianty, dont convert to Judaism, it is not the way.
Arian nations or nazi's do not care about Torah and following it.
Which is what Dan stressed.
You wrote, "We are trying to reunite the house of Judah with Ephraim,
but some of Ephraim just wants to think it's better than Judah and
boasts continually. Some of Judah doesn't want to accept Ephraim."
Since you and James use the same code words or lingo, perhaps you
could tell me, which James would not, just what makes you think that
the house of Judah is believing Jews and the house of Ephraim is
Goyim beleivers, but not Jews. Where in Scripture do you get
this belief from? I know people that are of the house of Ephraim, they
are called Shomroniym - Samaritans to some. Literal descendants of
Ephraim. Some of them do not believe in Yahusha' Hamashiach as the
Ben Yahuweh. They, like some of the unbelieving Yahudiym, are still
waiting for Mashiach. They are true house of Ephraim. Not this
faddish game you people are playing, sectioning the believers off into
groups for superiority.
Interestingly enough, Moses Gaster, a Jewish Rabbi in England in the
1920's, wrote a book on them (Shomroniym) and their history, even
calling them the house of Ephraim and saying that Ephraim needed to
be united with the stick of Yahudah, that both had a
lot to learn from each other. Funny that a Jewish Rabbi, a real one,
would refer to Ephraim as being the Shomroniym, where you people
are coming up with a whole nother grouping that cannot be backed up
by the Scriptures and I'm talking Tanak.
Now, you have brought Chris Lingle to public awareness. I got in
touch with him to confirm whose idea it was for the Beit Din, which
James statd he was a cofounder of. James sent me an e-mail and said
that he wanted the dicussion private, which I kept it. YOU have now
made it public and once public, will involve Chris and others.
If you are just a board of elders, then you would all be able to meet the
criteria of elders that is listed in Timothy and Titus, correct? And why
would titles such as Nasi, when Yahusha' is the Nasi, be necessary?
Why try to pattern it after a rabbinical Judaism order?
The reuniting of the two houses is of Yahuweh, you cannot force or
bring about in your timing, what Yahuweh wills. It is based on the
foundation of Yahuweh Himself, His Son Yhausha', His True Torah. It
is not of man to decide what is to be done and who is of this work and
who is outside it.
I disagree that those "Jews who call themselves Jews and are not" are
those of replacement theology, though granted, just by saying you are
Jewish does not make it so, even for those that say they are of Jewish
That verse is one to the Qehillah in Smurna. The one in the letter to the
Qehillah in Philedelphia, sheds more light on who is of this
"Synagogue of Satan". Revelation 3:8,9, " 'I know your deed - observe, I
have set before your face an open door, which man does not have the
power to shut, that you have diminished strength, yet you have
guarded My Word, and did not cover up My Name. See, I am giving
up those of the Keneseth of HaSatan, who say they are Yahudiym and
are not, but lie. See, I am making them come and worship before your
feet, and to know that I have loved you.' " Those verses clearly show that it is the same
unbelieving Yahudiym that Yahusha` referred to. Keneseth was the ruling council. THese were not even
regular, everyday Yahudiym, these were leaders.
That word for cover up, is the same as the lid on the Mercy Seat.
Basically, to put a lid on His Name. The Yahudiym and their
Rabbinical halacha did that. These are unbelieving Yahudiym that He
is discussing here. Those that were circumcised in flesh, but not in
THere was no replacement theology to warn about then, just physical
Yahudiym that did not acknowledge Yahusha' as Ben Yahuweh and
Ha Mashaich, who killed the nebiyiym, and made a den of thieves of
His Father's Beyth, who released a criminal and had Yahusha'
executed, just as Kepha accused them of, then had Stephan stoned
after he accusd them also of murdering the nebiyiym and the
Righteous One, killed Yaaqob Tsaddik, and attacked Shaul on his
journeys. You cannot begin to tell me that these same unbelieving
Yahudiym, that Yahusha' chastised repeatedly, were not those of the
Yahusha' stressed that those that believed in Him were His brothers
and sisters. It does not matter if they were of Hebrew birth or were
Goyim, they are now in the Household of Yahuweh, if they turn from
their sins to Yahuweh, believe in His Son Yahusha', and are
immersed in His Name and do His mitswoth. These are the
requirments for salvation. Nowhere does it say that if you were born
Jewish, that you are saved.
If you are here to defend James, then you have done no better job than
James did. Neither of you are speaking Torah and I wonder why. My
whole point of this thread was to refute James Trimm's wholesale
accusation of those of us, that did not agree with Talmud=TOrah, the
practices of Judaism, or his opinions, as being anti-semetic YHWHists.
You have done nothing to change my opinion of his teachings, in fact,
you wrote nothing that he did not, and just put it under another name.
You did not clarify what a Jew is by Scripture, you did to define the
house of Yahudah and the house of Ephrayim by Scripture, you did
not answer any of the questions that I had concerning the legitimacy of
James Trimms authority.
You HAVE repeated what he said, except contradicting him on the
Talmud issue. You have taken a private matter and now made it
public. ANd you have brought up a very good point about the board
of elders. Since you equate yourselves as elders, then you would have
to pass the test of elders. That will be interesting.
I look forward to your response, to see what your answers you have
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. The only reason that you accused me of such was because I disagreed with you and sought
to check with those men and not believe your word for it. I am owed an apology for your lies and your
slander. Shalom, Kathryn
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.