Recently myself and other prominent Messianic Leaders have
come under attack. These attacks have taken the form of lies, slander and Lashon HaRa. These attacks originate from two vicious women who spend most of their time attacking the leaders of Messianic Judaism. Other fine men who have been targeted and attacked by these two women are: David Hargis; Avi ben Mordechai; Michael Rood; Moshe Konicowski; Michael Boaz (FFOZ); Michael Detwiler and Ralph Messer. And
the "witch hunt" list just keeps expanding. (I do not always agree
with everything these men teach, but they are fine men, undeserving of such
slanderous attacks).
The first of these two women is Kathryn Kern. Kathryn is a
woman who initially brought her accusations against me in the year 2000. At
that time she insisted that the International Nazarene Beit Din (of which I
served as Rosh Beit Din) investigate her charges against me (this was her own choice). An independent committee was formed to investigate the matter and the committee exonerated me of all of her accusations. Then Kathryn asked an independent Hebraic-Roots Torah ministry called Gaftedin2Torah to judge the matter. This was a third party and neither of us knew the judges prior to that time. Graftedin2Torah ALSO exonerated me of all of Kathryn's charges and directed her to stop slandering me by Sukkot of that year. The following are excerts from their ruling:
We find James Trimm's use of the
pseudonym of Rabbi Yosef
not
inappropriate on the Mormon forums within James Trimm's
frame of reference. ....
There is no evidence that would
suggest that James Trimm
used his earned doctorate in any matter intended to
deceive; i.e.;
apply for a position at a
State-supported institution claiming that
he had credentials that they
recognized as accredited.
In our opinion, Kathryn has
committed Lashon hara against
James Trimm and owes restitution.
…
Kathryn's own webpages show the
lie in her allegation that his Bet din
made no investigation of the
charges. She owes restitution to James
Trimm and his Bet-Din....
We are... impressed…, with those
witness who have counseled with her
advising her that her website and
continued emailings to the BODY
of Messianic believers is Lashon
hara.
Jo herself has seen Kathryn commit
lashon Hara against James Trimm
on the IsraeLight forum. ...
She needs to recognize that James
Trimm has solid legal grounds to bring
a suit for (1) Defamation of
character as well as (2) slander and liable against
her and that the courts would
probably award him punitative damages.
In our
opinion, Kathryn needs to make
restitution and thanksgiving to James Trimm.
Because this is the season of
introspection and restitution and repentance,
we will allow Kathryn fellowship
on our forums until after the HOLY DAYS are
over. However, if she has not attempted to restore James Trimm and the
members of his Bet-Din and has not
taken down her slanderous website
immediately after or before
Sukkot, she will be disfellowshipped from our forums
and we will mention her name no
more.
Kathryn refused to comply and was disfellowshipped for
engaging in slander. She has since expanded the scope of her attacks and is now
also attacking David Hargis; Michael Boaz (FFOZ); Michael Detwiler and Ralph
Messer.
We are not certain of Kathryn's motives except to say that
the attacks from her began shortly after she strongly opposed our 1999 article
exposing the anti-Semitic book "Christianity Unmasqued". This book
openly teaches that today's "Jews" are not true Jews but are the
literal seed of Satan; misquotes the Talmud out of context to "prove"
that the Talmud advocates Sodomizing young children; that the Jews are
Christ-Killers and that a world Jewish conspiracy controls the media and
economy. The expose can be viewed at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chazak-VEmatz/message/19
The author of the book had been the official representative
of the ISR in the USA but in the wake of the publication of this highly
anti-semitic book they ended this relationship with him and issued a statement
saying in part:
The ISR wishes to issue the
following statement regarding
the recent rebuttal on the
Internet regarding the book
"Christianity Unmasqued",
by Dan Israel / Chaput,
and the involvement of Dan Chaput
with the ISR. …
With the recent publication of the
above book by Dan Chaput, and his
involvement in the distribution of
our publications, we feel that we can no
longer allow any individual to compromise
our mission due to their own
beliefs, publications or
doctrines. For this reason we decided to divorce
the distribution of our
publications from all individuals in an official
capacity. …
With regards to Dan Chaput’s
recent book, we felt compelled to issue the
following statement in respect to
his controversial Chapter 12.
We, in our belief and conduct, are
opposed to racism in all its forms, or
any intimation that salvation is
determined genetically or genealogically.
We wish to state that we are
unequivocally opposed to anti-Semitism and /
or anti-Jewishness; and for the
purpose of this statement the term Jew /
Jewish shall be understood to
include:
The tribe of Judah / Yehudah
The House of Judah / Yehudah
“He who calls himself a Jew, is
Jewish”, as stated by David ben Gurion
(Complete statement at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chazak-VEmatz/message/18
)
Yet Kathryn defended the book against our expose to the very
end insisting that these teachings were not anti-Semitic.
On 8/17/99 at 9:25 PM She posted on the Eliyah Forum (in
response to my expose):
I would like to post a rebuttal to
James Trimm's slanderous accusations,
against Pete Vacca and Dan
Chaput….
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. 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 matters?
And on 8/25/99 at 3:18 PM she posted to the same forum:
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."
The second of these women is Vickie Dillen. Vickie Dillen is
an enemy of the Hebraic Roots Movement in general. Ms. Dillen has a reputation
for lying and slandering other ministries with which she disagrees. In fact
another anti-Hebraic-Roots Christian "Discernment" ministry hosts the
"lies and distortions of Vicky Dillen" Website at: http://www.banner.org.uk/sum_heb.html
Vickie Dillen even misquotes the Talmud out of context in an effort to
"prove" that the Talmud advocates the sodomizing of young Children
(just as does the book which Kathryn Kern insisted was not really anti-Semitic). Vickie has also launched attacks against: David Hargis; Avi ben Mordechai; Michael Rood and Moshe Konicowski.
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which a person of good
reputation can be attacked by persons of ill repute, who have established a
reputation for slander and lies, and people will actually take these attacks
seriously.
Moreover anti-missionaries, persons who disagree with my
textual-origins theories and others opposing various of my teaching have found
opportunity in repeating the personal attacks and slander from these
unscrupulous persons and joining in chorus with them in order to promote their
own agendas. These persons would rather resort to personal attacks than
seriously debate the apologetic, textual or theological issues on their own merits.
Answering these false accusers is like fighting the pagan
mythical hydra. For every head one cuts off three more appear. For every false
accusation we answer and dispel these slanderers invent several more.
To run down a few of the false accusations:
I absolutely do NOT hold a belief that the Book of Mormon is
true.
The BoM quotes and paraphrases many phrases, verses,
concepts and even whole chapters from the Bible. In fact as much as half or more of the BoM actually closely
parallels passages in the Bible.
As a result there is much Biblical truth in the BoM. These are Biblical truths that first
appeared in the Bible.
Now regardless of whether or not the BoM is true or not
there is none-the-less a great deal of truth in the BoM.
If one takes a Hebraic-Roots approach to these Biblical
truths that appear in the BoM one is able teach these truths to Mormons from a
"Jewish Perspective" and thus deal with what could be called
"Jewishness" in/of the BoM.
This "Jewishness" is simply the result of applying a
Hebraic-Roots approach and a Jewish perspective to Biblical truths that appear
in the BoM. These Biblical truths
appear because the BoM quotes and paraphrases many phrases, verses, concepts
and even whole chapters from the Bible.
Now because of the fact that the BoM contains Biblical
truth, it can be very useful in reaching Mormons with these Biblical
truths. And by applying a
Jewish/Hebraic-roots perspective on these Biblical truths one can effectively
reach Mormons with both Torah and Messiah.
Christian ministries have used this type of approach for
years in attempting to reach Mormons with Orthodox Christianity. One tract published by Personal Freedom
Outreach says:
Anyone
visited by a Mormon Missionary has heard
the Elder's
testimony concerning the Book of Mormon:
That he knows
this book is the Word of God
and that the
founder of the Mormon Church,
Joseph Smith,
Jr., translated it by the gift and power of God.
Further, the
prospect is encouraged sincerely
to study the
Book of Mormon and "The divine truths
it
contains."
The Book of
Mormon indeed does contain a number of
"divine
truths", first set forth in the Bible,...
[the author
then lists six of these]
Much of the
major theology set forth in the Book of Mormon
is indeed in
harmony with orthodox Christianity.
However, many
who are visited by the LDS Missionaries
are unaware
that the present theology of the Mormon Church
is very
different from their own Book of Mormon. ...
Mormon
theology is not contained in,
but rather
contradicted by the Book of Mormon....
The presence
of "Divine Truths" within the Book of Mormon
is merely a
result of Joseph Smith, Jr. incorporating
much of the
Bible into his work. (see 'The use of the Bible
in the Book
of Mormon by H. Michael Marquardt).
- DIVINE
TRUTHS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
There are a number of Christian tracts and ministries that
have taken this same approach to disprove Mormon theology and teach Orthodox Christian theology to Mormons using the divine truths in their Book of Mormon.
For example the tract THOSE PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS from
Saints Alive:
http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/plainandprecious.htm
and an article called:
Joseph Smith vs. the Book of Mormon By Gary F. Zeolla
http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/smith.htm
There is another I have which is also called Joseph Smith vs. the Book of Mormon but was
authored by Bill McKeever and published by Mormonism Research Ministry; Box
20705; El Cajon, CA 92021-0955 but I have not found it on the net.
Some years ago I adapted this same approach to
Messianic/Nazarene Judaism. By taking a
Hebraic-Roots Jewish approach to these "divine truths" in the Book of
Mormon I could actually reach Mormons with real Torah based divine truth USING
THEIR OWN BOOK!
This approach becomes very important because Mormons put more stock in the Book of Mormon
than in the Bible. As a Saints Alive
tract correctly states:
"I
(Joseph Smith) told the Brethren that
the Book of
Mormon was the most correct
of any book
on earth, and the keystone of our religion,
and a man
would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts,
than by any
other book."
(History of
the Church, Volume 4, Page 461)
It is the LDS
concept that the Bible is the Word of God
as far as it
is translated correctly, that is,
what is left
of the Bible after many Plain and Precious
Things were
removed by the great and abominable church.
The Mormon
also "knows" that the Book of Mormon
is the Word
of God. It did not have many
Plain and
Precious Things removed. It did not
suffer at the
hands of many translations.
(Those Plain
and Precious Things tract- Saints Alive)
This tract goes on to show that the many unique Mormon
doctrines do NOT appear in the Book of Mormon which actually teaches against
them. The tract continues further down:
1 Nephi
13:26-36 says that the "great and abominable church"
(verse 26)
took away from the gospel many parts and covenants
which were
Plain and Precious, in order to pervert the ways of the Lord
and blind the
eyes and harden the hearts of the people.
The Bible was
corrupted because of this (verse 28). What were
some of those
Plain and Precious Things? Are these those that
separate
Mormonism from the Christianity that grew out of the past?
Are these not
the law of eternal progression, salvation,
baptism for
the dead, the nature of God, temples, and polygamy?
The Lord God
(Elohim) promised that a day would come
when these
things will be restored (verse 32) after the Gentiles
stumble about
because of this act of the "mother of harlots"
taking the
most Plain and Precious Things of the Gospel
of the Lamb
(verse 34). The Lamb of God (Jesus)
says exactly
how this
restoration of all the Plain and Precious Things
will come
about. In verse 35 He says He will manifest Himself
to the Seed
of Nephi and they shall write many things all
the precious
things taken away by that church and even
after they
(your seed) are all gone. These things shall be
hidden up to
come forth unto the Gentiles. Verse 36 says,
"And in
them shall be written my gospel., saith the Lamb,
and my rock
(word "rock" refers to the gospel' see D&C 11:24)
and my
salvation." Therefore, the Plain
and Precious Things
taken away by
the great and abominable church must be restored
in the Book
of Mormon. This is verified by Latter-day
revelations
also:
"For in
them are all things written concerning
the
foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock." (D&C 18:4)
"And
again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet
thine own
property, but impart it freely to the printing
of the Book
of Mormon, which contains the truth and
the Word of
God." (D&C 19:26) "And gave him power from on high,
by the means
which were before prepared, to translate
the Book of
Mormon; which contains a record of a fallen people,
and the
fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles
and to the
Jews also." (D&C 20:8&9) "And again, the elders,
priests and
teachers of this church shall teach the principles
of my gospel,
which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon,
in the which
is the fullness of the gospel." (D&C 42:12)
What are the things contained in the fullness
of the gospel,
the Book of
Mormon, which are lost, hidden and not contained
in the
Bible? By the Word of God, they must be
in the Book
of Mormon.
Where are these teaching of Mormonism?
The critical
doctrines that separate Mormonism from
the
Christianity that was debased for the loss of "many
Plain and
Precious Things" from its scriptures by the
"great
and abominable church" are listed here:
[the author
then lists several unique Mormon doctrines]
The Book of
Mormon is the "Stick of Joseph."
Either these
doctrines must be found in the Book of Mormon
or Mormonism
is subject to the words of Jesus in
His judgement
of 3 Nephi 27:11; Alma 13:20; 2 Nephi 28:15;
2 Nephi
28:16, 21-24, 25.
Not only can
these things not be found in the Book of Mormon,
but the doctrine of the Book of Mormon
is ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED
TO SOME OF
THESE "LDS ONLY" DOCTRINES! ...
The Author goes on to list several examples. Note also that this Christian author [Saints
Alive founder Ed Decker?] takes a "for arguments sake" type
approach. (In fact in this and many
similar Christian writings the authors, in taking this approach say many things
that could be quoted out of context so as to imply that they believe the BoM is
true.)
Now many years ago I did in fact go onto Mormon and Islamic
discussion groups under pseudonyms and argued against Mormonism and Islam
respectively by using their own books in a “for arguments sake” type
approach.
The slanderers have taken advantage of this fact to falsely
imply that I secretly believe the Book of Mormon to be true.
My true views of the Book of Mormon may be seen in the
articles at the links below:
A NAZARENE LOOKS
AT THE BOOK OF MORMON:
THE ANTI-NOMIAN
BOOK OF MORMON
By James Trimm
http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/guest/?page=NAZARENE_LOOKS_MORMON
A NAZARENE LOOKS AT THE BOOK OF MORMON:
THE TEST OF TORAH
By James Trimm
http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/guest/?page=NAZARENE_LOOKS_MORMON_2
A NAZARENE LOOKS AT THE BOOK OF MORMON:
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
By James Trimm
http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/guest/?page=NAZARENE_LOOKS_MORMON3
I have been accused by slanderers of purchasing my doctorate
from a diploma mill. This is totally
false. I earned my degree from St. John
Chrysostom Theological Seminary. Although
this was a non-accredited seminary, it is not unusual for Seminaries not to be
accredited.
My diploma may be viewed at:
http://trimmfamily.com/James_doctoratediploma_revised
And my transcript may be viewed at:
http://trimmfamily.com/doctoratetranscript.jpg
The following is quoted from the 1991 Seminary Bulletin:
In 1973 , Stephen M. Corradi, Ph.D., Exarch in North America for the Patriarch
of Caracas, authorized the establishment of Saint Charles College in memory of
Dom Carlos Duarte Costa, founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church in Brazil
(ICAB). Consecrated January 23, 1949 by
Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, Archbishop Corradi settled in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Saint Charles College was
founded with the purpose of preparing students for the priesthood in the North
American branch of the ICAB.
Consecrated January 23, 1949 by Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez,
Archbishop Corradi settled in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Archbishop Corradi appointed one of his priests,
Father Francis Jerome Joachim to be in charge of the seminary which was located
47 miles south of Albuquerque at Veguita, New Mexico. During the ensuing five years, five men were prepared and raised
to the priesthood.
In 1977, having succeeded Archbishop Corradi in 1974,
Archbishop Joachim determined to keep the Seminary focus on the task of
preparation for Holy Orders.
The Seminary was formally incorporated in California
in 1983 as Saint John Chrysostom Theological Seminary, ten years after its
canonical erection as Saint Charles College.
During the summer of 1987, the Seminary Trustees
determined to improve the course of study and broaden its constituency. In 1989 Don Bryant de Cordova, Bishop of
Santa Fe and Professor of Theology, completed a four year research project
which enhanced the curriculum, redesigned the Seminary program and instituted
an integrated approach to theological education. The task was completed with a new emphasis in theological
competence and pastoral preparation.
The Seminary is the Provincial Seminary of the
Metropolitan Province of Santa Fe, a recognized ecclesiastical territory of the
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America.
The Seminary ended operations in either 1995 or 1997 after
its more than 20 year history.
Saint John Chrysostom Theological Seminary was exempted from
the State of New Mexico Higher Education Regulations for degree granting and
course requirements, due to its religious (to wit: church) status. New Mexico
by virtue of exemption and the Religious-Nonprofit status did not disallow or
disapprove of the Seminary to operate and function as a authentic ministry of
the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America. New Mexico did not prohibit nor
approve of theological degrees based on the separation of Church and State
issue prevalent at that time. Saint
John Chrysostom Theological Seminary has never intimated or actually offered
religious and theological degrees in Texas, nor solicited in Texas. Contrary to claims by slanderers Saint John
Chrysostom Theological Seminary never offered anything other than Theological degrees
anywhere.
The Slanderers have claimed that there were never any other
students of the Seminary. Although I do
not know of many of them personally I have no doubt that there were MANY other
students over the Seminaries twenty year plus history. A quick search of the internet turned up two
persons who mention having been students of the Seminary in their credentials
posted on the web. No doubt there are
many more who do not have this fact posted in the internet.
Alicia Solomon, M.S.M.
( http://aliciasolomon.com/resume.htm
)
The Most Rev. John Sebastian A. Lula, OSB
( http://www.ind-movement.org/people_le_lz.html
)
My detractors have alleged that I never graduated from High
School and that I therefore could not have earned a doctorate. The truth is that my father died during my
final year of high school. I was very
upset and “blew-off” most of my classes leaving me ½ of a credit short of what
I needed to graduate. Under the rules
at that time I would have had to go back to school for an entire year in order
to graduate. My alternative was to take
the G.E.D. test and get my High School equivalency diploma right
away. So on June 8th 1985 I
took the G.E.D. test and passed with flying colors. Each section of the test was also given to graduated high school
seniors for comparison and each test was given a “percentile” score. The percentile score expressed what
percentage of graduating high school seniors scored below you on the test in
each section. I am pleased to say that
in writing skills I did better than 62% of graduating seniors. In Social Studies I did better than 88% of
graduating seniors. In science I did
better than 86% of graduating seniors.
And in reading skills I did better than 89% of graduating seniors. At any rate I do have a High School
equivalency diploma from the State of Texas.
As a doctoral candidate the Seminary required at least two
letters of recommendation from scholars with doctorate level degrees
recommending me for the degree of doctor.
The Seminary received three such letters on my behalf from: Rabbi Herbert J. Gilner, Dr. James De
Francisco and Dr. J. Phillip Arnold.
The Seminary also received a fourth, non-required letter of
recommendation from Phillip Arnn. Mr.
Arnn had sent a letter as a cover sheet for some articles I had written for the
Watchman Expositor, for which I was to receive Seminary credit. In an additional paragraph Mr. Arnn added a
short recommendation of his own. This
recommendation was never a requirement for the degree but it has gotten far
more attention than the letters of recommendation that were required.
The Phil Arnn letter can be viewed at:
( http://trimmfamily.com/arnn_letter_revised.jpg
)
Phil Arnn related in a statement a great many
"recollections" including a "recollection" that he had NOT
written any letter of recommendation for me. Phil Arnn later retracted his
earlier statement saying that when shown the actual letter in question he *did*
recall writing it and then he characterized his previous statement as based on
"one phone conversation" he only "vaguely recall[ed]".
James,
When I was first told about the letter in question ( it was not available
on-line at the time) I did not remember ever
writing a letter for you. I was
also under the impression that the letter was an endorsement of your present
theology and movement. Now that I have read the
letter, it is obvious that
it is mine and was limited to the recommendation of yourself and
the work
you had done on the Branch Davidian theology articles for the Expositor.
As to the reason for your receiving the degree, our recollections differ.
But, I only vaguely recall you mentioning the
degree in one phone
conversation. The Word clearly says that a truth is established in the
mouths of two or three witnesses, not just one.
At the present time, 2003, we obviously have taken different
roads as to
theology. But, as far as the two issues I have mentioned above, I hope this
sets the record straight.
Phillip Arnn,
Senior Researcher
Watchman Fellowship, Inc.
In a later email Phil Arnn said:
This is like a television crime
drama. Where were you on June 3ard, 1995?
Did you have a phone conversation
with one James Scott Trimm on the
morning of - - - ? What did he say
to you? What did you say to him?
Frankly, I did not remember
writing the letter until I saw the letter again
on James's website. I do not remember with a certainty what we said.
( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chazak-VEmatz/message/17
)
Phil Arnn (not to be
confused with Phil Arnold) is not a good witness for the slanderers to cite
because:
a.
He has changed a MAJOR factor from his original version of his story.
(i.e. He originally denied writing
any letter for me and then realized he
recalled WRONGLY.)
b.
Having
REALIZED that he had recalled a major element wrongly he was
wise enough to realize that his own recollections were (after eight
years) not
dependable. Thus HE HIMSELF
stated that ALL of his recollections concerning
my degree were from ONE phone call (eight years ago) which he only
"vaguely"
recalled. So while he repeats
that his recollection differs from mine he characterizes
his recollection as "vague" and admits that his recollection
had been in error on
a major point already.
c.
The
"witness" himself says that he should not be used as a
"witness"
because the scripture requires two witnesses and he is only one man with
"vague" recollections that have turned out to be inaccurate in
one major point
already.
d.
Arnn also
"recalls" me telling him that Gilner was a "Conservative
Rabbi".
Now it is easily documented that Gilner was an Orthodox Rabbi so what
POSSIBLE motive would I have had in telling Arnn he was a Conservative
Rabbi?
This is clearly an error on his part rather than mine which again calls
his recollection
into question (and he himself says his recollection was
"vague").
e.
The original
purpose of Phil Arnn's letter was as a cover letter for
a copy of an issue of the Expositor in which I had written
three articles
on the Branch Davidians. The
material was being sent to the Seminary
so that I would receive Seminary credit for the material. This itself was
because it was an earned
degree not merely an honorary degree. This is
also evidenced by the transcript and the letter
from Dr. Arnold which refers
to "formal and non-formal curricula involving years of study and
research".
These slanderers should forget using Phil Arnn as a
witness... he himself has said to forget using him as a witness. At this point I think Phil Arnn was
sincerer, but I also think his recollection is WAY off after eight years (and I
think he has realized that himself, so there is no shame in having only a
vague, faulty recollection of a single phone conversation eight years ago).
Rabbi Gilner was an
Orthodox Rabbi and linguist who wrote a letter of recommendation for my
doctorate and served as a recommending advisor for my doctorate degree saying
in part:
James Trimm is a young man who,
despite his youth, has already
demonstrated his fine linguistic and
analytic powers. I have known
him since I arrived in Texas more
than a year and a half ago. I have
seen his work and listened to his
translation and interpretation of
numerous verses in the Peshitta New
Testament. Moreover, we have
had many interesting discussions on
the Aramaic portions of the NaKh.
I find his linguistic instincts to
be sound.
- Rabbi Herbert J. Gilner, Orthodox Rabbi and linguist
Complete Signed copy: http://trimmfamily.com/Rabbi_Gilner.jpg
Gilner Prifile: http://trimmfamily.com/Gilner.html
Gilner Newspaper piece: http://www.trimmfamily.com/gilner_newspaper.jpg
Now the slanderers
have taken two courses of attack on the Gilner letter.
The first has been
to deny that Gilner was a real Orthodox Rabbi saying:
Rabbi Gilner's last address was Arlington, Texas, so that
is where I began. I called the synagogues and shuls in that location.
None knew of him but one. I simply asked for Rabbi Herbert Gilner.
The one that answered, which was a Reformed Synagogue, asked
why I needed him. They said if I needed a Rabbi for a wedding
or something, that they would rather recommend someone else,
as this guy was not reputable and they were pretty sure that he was
not even a Rabbi. They said that he did not attend at any of the
congregations that they knew of. I even called Fort Worth and
surrounding
areas with the same result.
So I called the Rabbinical Assembly, in New York, for the conservatives.
They did not have a Rabbi Herbert Gilner on record. I called the
Rabbinical Council,
in New York, for the Orthodox, and they dont (sic) have a Rabbi Herbert
Gilner.
One of the Reformed Synagogues that I spoke with, accessed their
database
of listed Rabbis and the Reformed dont (sic) have a Rabbi Herbert Gilner
either.
Ms. Kern pretends
that no one ever heard of a Rabbi Gilner.
However the truth is that Rabbi Gilner’s move to the Dallas/Ft. Worth
area in 1994 was such a big deal it prompted a full page newspaper profile on
Rabbi Gilner in the paper of record for the Fort Worth area, the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram ( http://www.trimmfamily.com/gilner_newspaper.jpg
). This profile reveals that
Rabbi Gilner was a well known Orthodox Rabbi with a special expertise in
Biblical Languages. In fact the article
reveals that Rabbi Gilner was involved in my very area of research:
“Gilner is researching selected New
Testament books,
taking them back to the original
Hebrew to pin down
what they actually say.”
When Ms. Kern speaks
of “a Reformed Synagogue” in “Arlington” she almost certainly spoke of Rabbi
Keith Stern of Beth Shalom Congregation.
Rabbi Keith Stern (who is Reformed)
is mentioned in the 1994 Newspaper Profile on Rabbi Gilner. When asked about Rabbi Gilner in 1994 Stern
said he was unfamiliar with the Rabbinic court with which Gilner held
association and that all one needed to be an ordained Rabbi is “three rabbis to
say you are ordained”. However the same
newspaper profile also interviewed Rabbi Bernard Honan of Temple Emanu-El in
Longview Texas. Rabbi Honan had known
Rabbi Gilner for decades and spoke of Rabbi Gilner as a “scholarly, genteel,
probing man.”
Since Gilner died in May of 2002 some slanderers have taken advantage of that fact to accuse me of "grossly elaborating" (exaggerating?) our "relationship".
But lets look at the facts:
1. Gilner stated in his letter that he had known me since moving to my area
a year and a half earlier.
2.
Gilner was researching the “original Hebrew” of “New
Testament books”
“to pin down what they actually say”.
3.
Gilner wrote
“James Trimm is a young man who, despite his youth,
has already demonstrated his fine linguistic and analytic powers. … I have
seen his [Trimm’s] work and listened to his translation and
interpretation
of numerous verses in the Peshitta New Testament. … I find his
linguistic
instincts to be sound.”
I think these facts make it apparent that I have in no way
exaggerated in calling Rabbi Gilner my old friend and mentor.
http://trimmfamily.com/defrancisco_letter.jpg
Doctor J. Phillip Arnold served as a recommending advisor
for my doctorate. He issued a letter of
recommendation, which said in part:
This letter
serves as a strong recommendation that Mr. James Scott Trimm
be awarded
the doctorate degree from Saint John Chrysostom Theological
Seminary. A doctorate degree presupposes that the
recipient possesses
a broad
range of knowledge about the field as well as having command
of a
specialized area of study. Mr. Trimm
has fulfilled both these qualifications
through
formal and non-traditional curricula involving years of study and
research in
the fields of theology, biblical studies, church history, comparative
religion
and linguistics. A doctorate degree
also assumes that the recipient
has made a
significant contribution of an original nature to his area of
specialization. Mr. Trimm has accomplished this task through
his creative
work in
Semitic studies which has focused on recovering the Jewish and
Aramaic
background for the origin and development of early Christianity.
His life’s
study and research represent the equivalent of doctoral programs
offered in
many seminaries and universities in this country and abroad.
Mr. Trimm
has worked with me at Reunion Institute as a colleague, leading
seminars
and writing academic papers. While
acquiring scholarly understanding
and skills,
Mr. Trimm has not forfeited his spiritual development. His intellectual
talents and
academic achievements are committed to acquiring a deeper
appreciation
of the faith of Jesus the Nazarene and to communicating this
faith to
those who follow Him. The doctorate
degree from Saint John Chrysostom
will enable
Mr. Trimm to more effectively fulfill his vocation as a scholar and
teacher of
theology and biblical studies. I
recommend him without reservation
for the
doctorate degree.
Sincerely
Yours,
J. Phillip
Arnold
(actual
letter: http://www.trimmfamily.com/arnold_letter.jpg
)
( Dr.
Arnold’s profile is at: http://www.trimmfamily.com/Arnold.html
)
One slanderer wrote as follows:
Phil Arnold is also dead, so we can't
simply ask him if James is,
like with Gilner, grossly
elaborating on any relationship.
The slanderers are in such a hurry to slander me that they
have declared Dr. J. Phillip Arnold to be dead!!!!
This is an outright fabrication!!!! These slanderers just make these things up
out of thin air! I spoke with Dr.
Arnold this afternoon and he was very specific about not being dead.
The following is an email Dr. Arnold sent today verifying
that he is alive:
From: jpa
<reunion@...>
Subject:
Re: Phil Arnold
X-MailScanner-Information:
Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner:
Found to be clean
Just
because I ascend to Paradise from time to time, does not mean that
I have left the abode of the
living. All is well.
Thanks for
the concern,
Phillip
Arnold
And in another follow-up :
From: jpa
<reunion@...>
Subject:
your message
X-MailScanner-Information:
Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner:
Found to be clean
James, I
sent out one message to some of our friends in response to your enquiry
to them
regarding my existence in this world. ...
Again,
thank you for the concerned phone calls.
It is good to know our friends
care about us.
Phil
And finally:
X-Sender:
reunion@...
X-Mailer:
QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Mon,
25 Aug 2003 15:40:07 -0500
To: James
Trimm <jstrimm@nazarene.net>
From: jpa
<reunion@...>
Subject:
Re: Concerning your Death ?!?!?!
Cc:
craig_amanyahu@..., netzari_storage@...
X-MailScanner-Information:
Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner:
Found to be clean
James,
You have
never taken advantage of me either in my death or in my life.
All is well with me. It seems that
the fable of my passing was based,
not on primary sources, but secondary sources replete with
errors.
As usual, you were correct to
check with the primary source, first edition.
And that is good scholarship.
I look
forward to seeing you and your family here at The Reunion Institute in the
Fall.
Let's put
together another lecture program for you to present.
Phil Arnold
President
The Reunion
Institute
August 25,
2003
The reports of Dr. Arnold's death have been greatly
exaggerated. In fact they have been
blatantly fabricated by individuals wanting only to engage in slander.
The Slanderers have accused me of not actually knowing
Hebrew and Aramaic. The following
quotes are intended to put to rest any claim that I am ignorant of Aramaic
and/or Hebrew:
Let's put this to rest. I learned
Hebrew and Aramaic
at Johns Hopkins University from
William Foxwell Albright.
I have read Dr. Trimm's works and
our disagreements are
in interpretation alone. In short, Dr. Trimm knows what the hell
he's talking about and that's all
that is necessary. You cannot fake
a knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic
vocabulary, grammar
and syntax any more than you can
fake being a brain surgeon.
-
Jack Kilmon, Aramaicist
(BTW Jack is a chief opponent of
my textual theories for some seven years now.)
James Trimm
is a young man who, despite his youth, has already
demonstrated
his fine linguistic and analytic powers.
In have known
him since I
arrived in Texas more than a year and a half ago. I have
seen his
work and listened to his translation and interpretation of
numerous
verses in the Peshitta New Testament.
Moreover, we have
had many
interesting discussions on the Aramaic portions of the NaKh.
I find his
linguistic instincts to be sound.
-
Rabbi Herbert J. Gilner, Orthodox Rabbi and linguist
Signed copy: http://trimmfamily.com/Rabbi_Gilner.jpg
Gilner Prifile: http://trimmfamily.com/Gilner.html
Gilner Newspaper piece: http://www.trimmfamily.com/gilner_newspaper.jpg
Aramaic scholar James Trimm, of
Ft. Worth, Texas, will be the primary
person involved in the preliminary
examination [of Codex Khaboris].
James Trimm will also serve as our
main consultant for the Original Bible Project
in incorporating Aramaic and
Syriac readings in our work of translating the Greek New Testament.
- Dr. James Tabor; Original Bible
Project
What every Gospel scholar dreams
about is a verifiably ancient copy
of Matthew in Hebrew... It now
appears that such a manuscript very well
might exist! Such a find would be
so valuable that I am not even going to reveal,
at this point, the reported
location, other than to say it is in the "East."
However, James Trimm, Phillip
Arnold, J. David Davis, an associate of mine,
and I are jointly involved in the
highly confidential process of locating
and obtaining this manuscript.
- Dr. James Tabor; Original Bible
Project
Dear James
Trimm,
…I have
heard from Prof. Frank Hibbin (of the Univ. of N.M.) that on nearby
__________
Mountain, there are inscriptions in the same script. This should
be checked out. Can you visit ______ Mountain and copy the
inscription(s)?…
best
wishes,
[Dr.] Cyrus
Gordon
(world’s leading Semitist and my
friend and mentor until his death March 30th, 2001)
(I have
omitted the name of the mountain because it is part of an ongoing
project we
were working on and now I am working on alone.)
Although Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote two essays alleging that
I do not know Aramaic he has since admitted that these issues are “scholarly
differences” and that the implication in these essays that I do not know
Aramaic was written out of “anger”:
I am also going to re-edit BOTH
ESSAYS so that the anger that
I have exhibited is eliminated.
….I am doing TESHUVAH
to the extent that I should have
confined my language in the essays
to just the scholarly differences.
I could have made the same points,
but cast them in a better way, and
that I also regret. Let's agree
to disagree then,…
-
Andrew Gabriel Roth
http://www.smartgroups.com/message/readmessage.cfm?gid=1353506&messageid=4008&startid=4009
And in another email Andrew said:
I don't think you are stupid or ignorant of Aramaic.
I might have greatly downplayed
your knowledge
in my rhetoric, that is true, and
it was done out of anger
and frustration on my part.
-
Andrew Gabriel Roth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chazak-VEmatz/message/16
My detractors have accused me of having lied about my having
had a personal friendship and academic collaboration with the eminent Semitist
Dr. Cyrus Gordon prior to his death on March 30th, 2001. The following letter written to me by Dr.
Gordon in 1996 should make it apparent that I have in no way lied about this
relationship.
The original of the following letter is signed and written
in Dr. Gordon’s own hand on his own personalized stationary. Dr. Gordon and I were working on a project,
which I am now carrying
on alone. I have
placed blanks in certain key places to preserve the confidentiality of this
on going project until I am ready to publish.
12 March 96
Dear James Trimm:
Last Friday (March 8th)
I was operated to clean out my right carotid artery,
which was 90% occluded. The operation went well, but the anesthetic
had
a bad side-effect so that I am
catheterized and quite uncomfortable.
Tomorrow I visit with the
urologist who, I hope, will be able to remove
the catheter.
Your critique of _____ does not
surprise me.
As for the _______ text: I heard
from Prof. Frank Hibben (of the Univ. of N.M.)
that on nearby ________ Mountain,
there are inscriptions in the same script.
This should be checked out. Can you visit _______ Mountain and copy the
inscription(s)?
I know nothing about an article by
Pfeiffer in Isis. When you locate the
article,
Please give me the volume and page
number in Isis.
The Brazil inscription is not very
ancient. I have reason to think it is
the work
Of a secret society akin to the
Masons. My error in taking it to be of
ancient
Phoenician origin was due to my ignorance of secret
societies.
I think I have a copy of my
article on the Brazil text with transliteration of
every letter.
In my present condition, I cannot
get up to my third floor to get reprints
for you.
Are you sure you will be able to
get permission to excavate _______ ?
The director of antiquities is
located in _______. _________ and
the
academic establishment is in
_______. They are not likely to grant
permission to an outsider.
Best wishes,
Cyrus Gordon
The slanderers have also accused me of plagiarizing the HRV
NT from other translations. They have
attempted to “prove” this allegation of plagiarism by comparing verses of the
HRV NT to verses from a literal translation of the Peshitta NT.
Let me be clear:
No the HRV NT was not plagiarized from other translations.
The HRV NT was translated directly from the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts.
The HRV is a literal translation, which follows the Hebrew and/or Aramaic
sentence structure closely. As such it will have close agreements with other
translations that do the same. Moreover a translator cannot avoid being
influenced by other translations with which he is familiar. I can point to many
elements in the HRV NT translation which differ from any translation published
to date, and which could only be derived directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic
texts. The extensive footnotes to the HRV NT are a strong evidence of this
fact.
There are passages in which the HRV translates words which
other translations leave untranslated (for example in Mark 1:13 the HRV
translates the Aramaic word KAD (“while”) but no other translation from the
Aramaic translates this word.) Thus the
HRV has “while being tempted” but other translations have only “being tempted”
or “being tested”. The HRV could not
have derived this from any of the English translations of the Peshitta because
they all omit the word in their translations.
There are also many passages in which the HRV translates ambiguous
Aramaic words in ways that are substantively different from any other
translations from the Aramaic. There
are many passages in which the HRV translates ambiguous Aramaic words
differently but in ways that are NOT substantively different from any other
translations from the Aramaic (do not change the meaning.) And there also are many passages in which
the HRV follows the Aramaic text of the Old Syriac while other translations
from the Aramaic follow the Aramaic Peshitta in those passages. These differences can also only result from
working directly from the Aramaic source documents.
Finally the HRV NT contains over 1,700 footnotes, hundreds
of which give special insights into specific Aramaic words and phases, offer
alternate renderings from other various Hebrew and Aramaic source texts or
offer alternate renderings to ambiguous Aramaic words. No other translation has these
footnotes. These footnotes demonstrate
clearly that the HRV had to have been translated directly from the original
Aramaic and could not have been simply plagiarized from other translations.
The HRV text of Matthew can be seen complete with
approximately 400 such footnotes at http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/Matthew.pdf
. Any reader can see that these
footnotes can only be the result of an actual translation process and
consultation of various Hebrew and Aramaic source texts in the original Hebrew
and Aramaic.
The following is a comparison of five literal translations
of Greek Mark. I have given only the
first five verses so as to stay within the realm of “fair usage” and not
violate Copyright Laws by reproducing large portions of these versions.
This comparison shows clearly that very literal translations
will tend to agree closely with each other.
Obviously the KJV and NKJV should not be compared directly to each
other, they have both been given so that the other translations could be easily
and quickly compared to each of them.
The HRV has no greater agreement with other literal translations from
the Aramaic than these literal translations from the Greek have with each other
(and probably less).
COMPARISON OF LITERAL TRANSLATIONS OF GREEK MARK 1:1-5
KJV 1: The beginning
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
NKJV: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God.
Roth: 1 The
beginning of the good news of Yeshua ha Mashiach, the Son of God;
NAS: 1 The beginning
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
ISR: 1 The beginning of the Good News of Yahushua Messiah,
the Son of Elohim.
KJV 2: As it is
written in the prophets,
NKJV 2: As it is written in the Prophets:
Roth 2: As it is
written in the prophets,
NAS 2: As it is
written in Isaiah the prophet:
ISR: 2: As it has
been written in the Prophets,
KJV Behold, I send
my messenger before thy face,
NKJV "Behold, I
send My messenger before Your face,
Roth Behold, I send
my messenger before your face,
NAS Behold, I send
my messenger ahead of you,
ISR: “See, I send
My messenger before
Your face,
KJV which shall
prepare thy way before thee.
NKJV Who will
prepare Your way before You."
Roth who will
prepare Your way before you
NAS who will prepare
Your way
ISR who shall
prepare Your way before
You,
KJV 3: The voice of
one crying in the wilderness,
NKJV 3: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Roth 3: The voice of
one crying in the wilderness:
NAS 3: The voice of
one crying in the wilderness:
ISR: 3: a voice of one crying in the wilderness,
KJV Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
NKJV: 'Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths
straight.' "
Roth: Prepare the
way of the Lord, make His paths straight.
NAS: Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.
ISR: ‘Prepare the
way of YHWH, make His paths straight.’ ”
KJV 4: John did
baptize in the wilderness,
NKJV 4: John came baptizing in the wilderness
Roth: 4: John came immersing in the wilderness,
NAS 4: John the
Baptist appeared in the wilderness
ISR: 4Yohanan came
immersing in the wilderness
KJV: and preach the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
NKJV: and preaching a baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins.
Roth: and preaching
the immersion of repentance for the remission of sins.
NAS: preaching a
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
ISR: and proclaiming an immersion of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins.
KJV 5: And there went out unto him all the land of
Judaea, and they of Jerusalem,
NKJV 5: Then all the land of Judea, and those from
Jerusalem, went out to him
Roth 5: And all the
land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, went out to him,
NAS 5: And all the
country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem;
ISR: 5 And all the
country of Yehudah, and those of Yerushalayim, went out to him
KJV: and were all
baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
NKJV: and were all
baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Roth: and were all
immersed by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
NAS: and they were
being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
ISR: and were all
immersed by him in the Yarden River, confessing their sins.
KEY:
KJV = King James Version
NKJV= New King James Version
Roth = Book of Life Version from Messianic Vision (Sid Roth)
NAS = New American Standard
ISR = “The Scriptures” version from the Institute for
Scripture Research in South Africa
(In the case of this version I have resolved sacred names,
which this version retains in a Hebrew font)
The Slanderers have also accused me of lying about having
“some Jewish ancestry”. Let me make it
clear for the community that I have not lied about having Jewish ancestry.
My Father was James H. Trim.
His father was Ernest Vester Trim.
His mother was Rhoda Colvins.
Her mother was Matilda Vinyard.
Her father was Tabor C. Vinyard.
His father was Christian Vinyard.
(His name was originally Weinert
but was changed to Vinyard)
His father was Johan Nicholas
Weinert
(who came to the New World from
Germany in 1749)
His father was Johannes Conradt
Weinert
(Who was born in Germany in 1716).
"Weinert" is a common European Jewish surname.
In fact Jewish Records Indexing of Poland lists
"Weinert" as a Jewish surname.
http://www.jewishgen.org/jri-pl/psa/brzezanysurn.htm
Johannes Conradt Weinert and his descendents were ethnically
Jewish Christians.
I suspect Johan Nicholas Weinert came to the New World to
escape mounting anti-Semitism in Germany (and which Jewish Christians were not
immune from). I also suspect the name was later changed from the common Jewish
surname Weinert to Vinyard in an attempt to hide Jewish identity. This may also
have been the motive in
naming "Christian Vinyard" as well.
At any rate my great-great grandmother was Matilda Vinyard
(really Weinert).
There are other lines I am still researching, but this is
sufficient to show that I have not lied about having "some Jewish
ancestry".
Also let me emphasize that I began practicing Rabbinic
Judaism and attending a Rabbinic Synagogue when I was 14 until I became a
believer in Yeshua as Messiah when I was 18.
So for the record Judaism has been my only religion since I was a child.
I wish to emphasize that I have never claimed that I was a
MEMBER of that Synagogue. For those who
do not know, Synagogue membership is not the same as Church membership. As a rule in Rabbinic Judaism a Synagogue
MEMBER is a person who pays (often high) dues or membership fees to the
Synagogue. Often there are regular
attendees who are not “members” and there are often members who rarely if ever
actually attend, I was only a teenager
so I was NOT paying dues for membership in the Synagogue. As I have always said I ATTENDED the
Synagogue regularly from the time I was fourteen until I was eighteen. Slanderers have lied in claiming that I
claimed to have been a member of that Synagogue and then made much of the fact
that I was not on the old membership roles.
This has been done to take advantage of people who are familiar with
Church membership roles and who will assume that Synagogue membership works in
the same way.
I should also point out that my wife is Jewish even by
Rabbinic standards (she is the granddaughter of a holocaust survivor) and we
have four children together who are Jewish even by Rabbinic standards.
One of the slanderers had called my mother to inquire about
whether or not I had any Jewish ancestry. They report that she denied this was
true. Unfortunately my mother has Alzheimer's disease and is not clear in
many of her memories.
In 1989 I left Beth Yeshua Congregation of my own
choice.
At the time I was hosting a Torah Study being led by an
Orthodox Rabbi who had become a believer in Messiah. This study was being held some 20 miles from Beth Yeshua, on a
night which did not conflict with Beth Yeshua activities and no one from Beth
Yeshua (except myself) was attending.
Stan Eisenberg (then the leader of Beth Yeshua) and another member from
Beth Yeshua Congregation, came to my door as two “witnesses” that I could not
continue to host these studies and remain a part of Beth Yeshua Congregation. Stan Eisenberg told me that if I continued
to host these studies he could no longer be my “covering”. I told Stan that in Hebrew the word for
“covering” is KIPPUR which also means “atonement”. I told Stan that he was not my “atonement” and never would
be. I also told Stan that if I could
not host a private Torah study in my own home without Stan’s permission, that I
would no longer be a member of Beth Yeshua Congregation. The next day was a Wednesday and that
Wednesday night at the weekly prayer meeting Stan announced that I was being
disfellowshipped from Beth Yeshua Congregation (although I was no longer a
member). The officially announced
reason was that I had chosen to “seek [my] own way away from the
congregation”. In a letter dated June 14th
1990 Kuni Beasley, then a member of Beth Yeshua Congregation, recalled the
events this way:
“When Stan
gathered the congregation to advise us of the decision
to
disfellowship [James] Scott [Trimm], he was very clear on the
reasons for
this action: Scott was in sin, had refused to repent, and
was
determined to seek his own way away from the congregation.”
(Kuni
Beasley 1990 letter page 7)
In this 1990 letter Kuni was actually writing in support of
Stan’s action and stated that one of the key issues in my departure from Beth
Yeshua was my challenge to “Rabbi Eisenberg’s Biblical authority as leader of
the congregation” (p. 1) and referred to Stan’s “authority to exercise offices
of episkipos (bishop) and presbbuteros (elder) of the congregation, and his
calling to minister as the poimen (pastor/shepherd) of Beth Yeshua” (p.
1). He refers to Heb. 13:17 as
supporting Stan’s authority and states that “Scott has a problem with this
scripture” (part 2 page 13 n. 58).
Nearly two years later, on March 25th, 1992 Kuni Beasley
made the following statement to Beth Yeshua Congregation:
“I am
committed to Stan Eisenberg’s appointment and ordination by God
to be the
spiritual leader of Beth Yeshua Congregation.
I will assert that
no one else
in the congregation has done more to support and defend
this over
the last year than I have. I will
remain committed to Stan
Eisenberg’s
divine appointment as the spiritual leadership of Beth Yeshua
Congregation
until shown otherwise.”
Then two months later on May 30th Kuni issued a written and
verbal statement saying:
“I am a
witness to the truth of Chris’ testimony.”
The testimony he referred to was that of Chris Ayers,
another member of Beth Yeshua Congregation.
The testimony they both delivered was written and verbal (they read from
it) as follows:
Stan
Eisenberg is in error and is leading this congregation in an
unbiblical
manner. He executes his congregational
authority
without
being accountable to anyone. He quotes
Hebrews 13:17
and demands
that the congregation obey him and submit to him.
But who
does Stan submit to? Who is he
accountable to (1Pet. 5:5)?
All
references to the congregational leadership in the Bible indicate
a
leadership made up of a bishop, elders and deacons. According to
Stan, no
one fits the qualifications except him.
For most of 12 years
this
congregation has not had accountable leaders according [to] the
Bible.
(Statement
made Chris Ayers and Kuni Beasley at Beth Yeshua on May 30, 1992)
Kuni describes the giving of this testimony before the
congregation this way:
On May 30,
1992, as the congregational announcements were
concluding,
Chris Ayers and I stood up in the midst of the assembly
of Beth
Yeshua Congregation, Ft. Worth, Texas, and delivered the
statement… This
action was done in accordance with 1Timothy 5:19-20.
It was not
pretty. Amid the shouting of the
Congregation leader,
Stan
Eisenberg, his wife, and various persons in attendance,
the message
was delivered, albeit, after the written statements
from which
we were reading were torn from our hands
several times by Stan Eisenberg.
And in a letter dated June 9th 1992 Kuni writes:
Stan is
operating the congregation illegitimately… Stan operates
without congregational accountability, holds
to the supremacy
and
absolute finality of his personal decisions and imposes
sanctions
on
those in the congregation who question his authority or his
personal
doctrinal position.
In the wake of this testimony several key members left Beth
Yeshua Congregation including Chris Ayers and Kuni Beasley for the same reason
I had.
Sometime later Stan Eisenberg left Beth Yeshua Congregation
and was replaced by Rabbi David Stone, the current leader of Beth Yeshua
Congregation. I contacted Rabbi Stone
in 1999 and was informed by him that his disfellowshipment by Stan Eisenberg
was no longer recognized by Beth Yeshua Congregation.
In 2001 Stan Eisenberg wrote a very negative email about me
accusing me of many things. Almost all
of these were negative things my now-late ex-wife had told Stan but had later
admitted (prior to her death) to my current wife that she had lied to Stan and
others about me in order to get them “on her side” against me.
1. No I did not impregnate my wife out of wedlock when she
was seventeen. My wife and I married when she was eighteen on July 15th 1991
(she turned 18 on July 9th) and our first child together was born nearly a year
later on June 23rd 1992.
2. No I did not once send my blind (now late) ex-wife out to
work while I stayed home. In fact my (now late) ex-wife did not become blind
until some years after we divorced.
3. No I have never abused my children. This was a false
accusation my ex-wife made during the divorce but which she later recanted and
even signed custody of our daughter together over to me voluntarily. This is
one of many things she accused me of but later recanted and admitted that
she had lied in order to manipulate the leader of the
Messianic Congregation she had been attending into supporting her divorce and
continuing to pay her bills for her as a single mom.
4. No I do not practice witchcraft. I do teach the
Kabbalistic understanding of the three pillars of the Godhead but this does not
mean that I agree with everything that anyone has ever called "Cabbala;
Qabbala or Kabbalah". There are many things taught under those names which
are NOT in keeping with Torah and which I do NOT advocate, including teachings
of witchcraft groups using those names to describe their perverse teachings.
5. No I have not rejected the deity of Messiah or the Virgin
Birth.
6. No Codex Khaboris
was not damaged while in my possession.
Codex Khaboris was never in my possession. I had “direct access” to Codex Khaboris while it was housed at
the Reunion Institute in Houston. Dr.
Arnold NEVER made that statement this is an outright lie on the part of Kathryn
Kern.
