Dr. Brown Takes Your Calls and Answers Your Questions

Phone lines are wide open. You've got questions. We've got answers. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Welcome. Welcome to the Line of Fire. You've got questions. We've got answers. 866-34-TRUTH, 866-348-7884. Any question of any kind that relates in any way to the Line of Fire broadcast.

My great joy to take your question if you want to probe on something I believe, want to challenge me, want to clarify something. 866-34-TRUTH. On the way into the office, I tweeted this out. I truly believe that if more preachers were on fire, then more believers would be on fire, unless if our cities would be on fire. Worthy News tweeted this in response. So true. Revival is coming.

As I've come to the States for speaking tours for 15 plus years, this is the first time I've come where the level of apathy is dissipating. We're on the verge of a real move of God. This is a real opportunity.

Yes and Amen. All right, we go straight to the phones, beginning with Joseph in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Thanks for calling the Line of Fire. Thank you, Dr. Brown. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. So I have a question in Genesis, in chapters 4 and 5. In Genesis, chapter 4, verses 1 and 2, it says that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. It does not give any indication that they had any children prior to Cain and Abel. Then it says in verse 13, in Cain's response to the Lord for his punishment for killing his brother, he basically says that anyone who finds him will kill him, which would indicate that there are other people on the earth at this time. Yet we see in chapter 5, verse 4, that Adam had other sons and daughters after he fathered his third son Seth. So my question is, did the scribe miss something as far as indicating that there were other children born before Cain and Abel?

What's going on as far as dismissing information about other people that were in the earth? Yeah, it's just telling us the broad lines in terms of genealogies, so that you have Cain and Abel, the first two, and they become major players because Cain kills Abel, and then the death of Abel now is placed by Seth, but it's not telling you everything else. In other words, we understand that after Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, that they had many other children, there's no reason not to think that the fact that the earth is getting populated by more people indicates that's the fact, and it's quite some time before Cain kills Abel.

In Hebrew, it's literally at the end of days, miket yamin. So they're grown men, they are established in their livelihoods and things like that, when the murder takes place. So what we understand is that there are others that were born, but this is very common, both in terms of ancient and recent literature and the Bible itself, that it's tracing certain lines and giving us information about certain people. Even when you compare genealogies in the Bible, one author is focusing on a particular thing and will skip certain generations. You have that in Matthew 1, he's skipping things compared to Luke 3, and you have the same in the Old Testament. It's very common, it's focusing on the main players and the main lines, as opposed to everybody that was being born. I don't believe any were born before Cain and Abel, but certainly after Cain and Abel, so they could have been 50 or 100 years before these things took place, so plenty of time for society to begin to grow.

If you read other ancient documents from the ancient world, kings lists and genealogies, you'll see this is very common. And again, the key stories are being told. The goal is not just to give us information as to how people got on the earth, because everybody's here. It's like, well, we know we got here, right? We know we got here. So that wasn't in dispute. The issues are, what are some of the key events? What are some of the results of the fall? Who are some of the key people as we trace from Adam to Noah?

Because that's what happens in Genesis 5. So that's what's going on there. Hey, thank you, sir, for the question. I appreciate it. 866-34-TRUTH.

Let's go to Louisville, Kentucky. Craig, welcome to the line of fire. I've seen your commentary on Isaiah 7.14, and I've really tried to do a lot of my own research as well, but from as much as I can gather, when I read Matthew 1.23 specifically, and I replace the word virgin for Alma, what I find seems to me to be a contradiction in that it says, the prophecy says that an Alma will give birth. But in Matthew 1.23, Joseph marries her before she gives birth. And so if you replace, in Matthew 1.23, virgin with Alma, she couldn't have been an Alma when she gave birth because she was married before she gave birth. But it says they had no sexual relations until she gave birth. Yeah, but wouldn't an Alma be a marryable woman? Well, it doesn't mean she's unmarried.

It doesn't have to mean that. It's really speaking of an age. Again, that's the thing. It's a great question.

I appreciate it, sir. That's where we often get confused in terms of terminology or word use and things like that. And part of the sign is that it's a supernatural birth. Part of the sign is that it's God with us, Immanuel. That's a big part of it as well in terms of the emphasis of Matthew and what makes this such a sign. But no, the key thing is a young woman, potentially of a marriageable age, but presumably virgin, is going to conceive and give birth to a son.

And Matthew quotes this, the Septuagint. The fact that they went from a spouse to formerly married, had no sexual relationships, would not affect your status. It's not a technical legal term. That's the whole thing.

It's referring to roughly age and type of person. That's why there's some debate, ongoing debate about the usage. Absolutely. Do you know of any reference in the Old Testament of Alma being used when the female is explicitly married similar to Beli? Okay, so there's debate. There's debate. For example, in Song of Solomon, the first chapter where it mentions Alamot, there's traditional rabbinic interpretation that says that means virgins, and they were just part of Solomon's entourage. There are others that say that they were concubines, potentially, so there was sexual relations.

So there's a debate both ways on that. In Proverbs, where it speaks of several things that leave no trace and the ship at sea, etc., one of them is an almah with a man. Is that talking about romance and relationship? Is that talking about marriage and sexual union? There's debate about that. But there's nothing explicit that speaks of an almah married.

There's debate. Is there Betulah married in Joel 1-8, or is that just meaning a spouse? Take one more second here in Matthew 1-23. Interesting, I got a call from an Orthodox Jew about the same passage yesterday to discuss almah from a different angle, so this is almah week here.

We had a long talk, and we'll probably pull that and put that up, because it was a very interesting discussion with an Orthodox Jew. So the Hebrew hineh ha-maharavi oledet ben could be translated, behold, the almah is pregnant and about to give birth, or the almah is about to be pregnant and give birth. So it could theoretically be talking about a woman who at that moment was an almah who was about to be married and would conceive and give birth. I was going to say, because I saw that the Tanakh version versus the way it's typically quoted in the Christian Old Testament, I saw the difference, and wouldn't the Judaic interpretation make it much more difficult to see Isaiah 7-14 as a prophecy, since it literally says she is pregnant and she's about to give birth?

Right. Either way, there's something that was being spoken of at that time in Isaiah's day. There was something that took place, but it did not fulfill the meaning of the words. There's something that had to be relevant to the days of King Ahaz, but does not reach its fulfillment until the birth of the Messiah. But either way, again your point that if we look at Matthew 1-23, which is quoting the Septuagint, that she'll conceive and bear a son, that she'll still be an almah, there's no problem with that concept. I understand what you're arguing, but here, if you just think of this, if you push virgin, okay, so she's a virgin, she conceives, she still gives birth, as a virgin, that works. If you're saying an almah has to be unmarried, then it wouldn't work.

But again, the usage is so limited. Here, let me give you an example. David in the Bible is called an elem. It has nothing to do with singleness or not. It has to do with basically a state of age, that's all.

That's the male, elem, woman, almah. So the usage is so limited that in and of itself, as I've argued many times, it does not mean virgin, and in whether the petulah in and of itself means virgin. But I can give you examples from the ancient Near East, from other literature, that will speak of an almah having a child. So it does not exclusively mean virgin or exclusively mean unmarried. It's speaking generally of a state of age. But anyway, if you check, if you're able, if you're not able to check on this, shoot us an email and just say, hey, could you give some of those references to almah outside of the Hebrew Bible?

And we'll be happy to respond for you. But that will fill things in. It's just not a strict legal term that had to refer to an unmarried woman. It's when we look at the larger picture, then we understand the full meaning of the prophecy. I believe that's how it would have been in Isaiah's day and certainly how it was in Matthew's day.

The fact that he was born of a virgin, that he was God with us, draws Matthew back to Isaiah 714. You think, wow, there it is spoken in advance. Hey, I appreciate the questions and the probing. Well done.

We'll be right back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into The Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on The Line of Fire, 866-34-TRUTH. Hey, please check out my website, AskDrBrown.org, A-S-K-G-R Brown.org. You'll find literally thousands of hours of free resources, free as in free. Plus, you can order the 40 plus books I've written there and other whole courses and materials and series we have. But check out the resources there. Search for things you're interested in.

You'll find a ton of free resources, articles, videos, audio series. Check it out. And when you go, if you don't get my emails, sign up to be on our email list, okay?

You'll get a free mini book, an e-book, Seven Secrets of the Real Messiah, and you'll hear some great stuff from us every week. All right, back to the phones. And we start with Angela in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Thanks for calling The Line of Fire. Hi, Pastor Michael.

Hey. You know, this is a really great break in my day, because I was just reading my Bible and having my devotion, and I turned on the radio and there you were. And when I heard Line of Fire, this is my question for you. Is the word Line of Fire meaning that you are baptizing people and the Holy Spirit and fire? Okay, so number one, Line of Fire is a name that came to us as we were going on radio about 12 years ago, because I'm always in the Line of Fire in that we're tackling the controversial issues of the day from a biblical point of view. And therefore, you know, join us on the Line of Fire or get in the Line of Fire. Interestingly, when I came up with the name and the concept, it was right about the time that William Buckley passed away, and he had Firing Line on TV for many years. I thought, isn't that interesting?

But here's why I'm smiling as you're asking this. For many years, fire has been a major theme I've preached on. God being a consuming fire, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. As I've prayed for people over the years, let's say I'm praying for hundreds of people after a meeting, I'll often pray fire, meaning, Lord, touch them, a fresh touch of the fire and passion and purity and power of your spirit. So even though the thrust of the broadcast is not about the baptism and the Holy Spirit and fire, Matthew 3-11, fire is an all consuming theme in my life. I've written books with titles like Holy Fire or Playing with Holy Fire and again, preached on God being a consuming fire, refiners fire over the years.

So it's fitting to have fire in the name of the broadcast. Our school is Fire School of Ministry. Our church is Fire Church. Our missions organization is Fire International. So fire is a burning theme in my heart and life. Well that is really awesome, and I can understand the line of fire, being in the line of fire, because that's where we are right now, and I guess in politics and the transformation of the church and doctrines clashing, so we're all, you know, that's really cool. Well it's really, I actually remembered who you are, because I finally remembered Michael Brown and then Sid Roth, and then you went on a huge fasting, you went on a health revolution, and you got your body reduced and in shape, and I thought, now I know who he is.

That's it. And so I just want to bless you, and it's really a joy to hear your radio station, and now I know when to tune in. And if you could pray for me, I'd really appreciate it, because I'm actually going back and forth from Fort Mill to Washington and doing prayer vigils, and so connecting with the teams that are meeting up in Washington and uniting with them for revival and for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

It's everything, Angela. There's nothing more important right now than crying out to God for revival outpouring, repenting of our own sins, giving ourselves a fresh to touch this nation. Yes, we vote, we do these other things, but the church coming alive, that's it, that's number one. And again, as I tweeted right before as I was driving up here, I truly believe that if more preachers were on fire, then more believers would be on fire, unless of our cities would be on fire. So the Lord be with you, may you be a flaming fire as you go. And yes, by God's grace, it is six years and two months since God helped me radically change my diet, lifestyle, and the answer that I wrote about it in the book, Breaking the Stronghold of Food. And whereas I used to get like three headaches a week, it's now six years and two months without a headache.

That's one tiny example of the life transformation. Hey, thank you for the call. 866-34-TRUTH. We go to Cassie in Ankeny, Iowa. I remember talking to you before because I remember the city name. How you doing? Yeah, hi there. Yes.

I wanted to ask you a question because you're taking general questions, and you know how I feel about your broadcast. The Abraham Covenant that's going on right now that I believe Trump has united Arab Emirates are on board, and Bahrain is on board. I don't know if I pronounced that right, and I think there's a third one. Sudan is now on board and potentially Saudi Arabia next.

Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia next. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that. I personally believe I'm nowhere near as learned as you are. I do enjoy listening to you. I've grown in listening to you and getting your perspective. I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and I went to church for many, many, many years, not really understanding that I needed to connect with God and read my Bible and get on my knees and pray.

It wasn't just enough to go to church twice a week, you know what I mean? And a lot of the things that you say, that you bring that home, and I want you to know, as I've stated before, how grateful I am. I'm 56 years old, and I just, I wished I would have been able to listen to you when I was raising my children. And I tried to do a good job raising my children. I homeschooled my children.

I used Bob Jones University and a Becca curriculum when I was raising my kids. But you bring a lot of understanding and clarity to a lot of issues, and you cause people, not just myself, I'm sure, to look things up, to do for yourself, to think and to pray and to understand that commitment to God. So I wanted to say that to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Cassie.

And tell you what, let me jump in and answer, but thank you. Thank you for the kind words. And you know what's neat is a mom continues to have an influence on her kids as they're older. Nancy's closer with our daughters who are in their early 40s than she ever, ever was. You know, they were even little kids in terms of just the depth of the relationship and the trust and the interaction.

So I'm sure the Lord will continue to use you to be a blessing to your kids. But here's my take on the Abraham Accords on the surface of it. It's wonderful. In other words, it's unprecedented. Nineteen forty eight to nineteen seventy nine before the first peace treaty signed that with Egypt. Then seventy nine to ninety five before the second peace treaty signed that with Jordan.

Now suddenly United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, potentially Saudi Arabia and supposedly others. This is massive. This is historic.

If it had been anyone but Donald Trump, their instant Nobel Prize, I mean, there's just no question about it. It's just totally unprecedented. So on the surface of it. Excellent. Now, when you when you break it down, a lot of it is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the great threat in the Middle East is Iran and now aligned with Turkey. So to the extent that that Israel is the enemy of Iran, then then the enemy might is my friend. So Saudi Arabia, these other countries here, well, let's stand together with Israel for the common good of the region. Let's benefit economically. Let's better benefit in technology.

Let's help the overall well-being of our nations while we unite together against the threat of Iran and what it represents in the region. Great. Wonderful. Positive. Now, the potential negative is that this could all be a setup for a false peace, that this could lead to what will ultimately be an Antichrist type of situation, that these are steps, necessary steps in paving the way for the unraveling of the Middle East.

But here's the deal. You can't make decisions based on potential prophecy. In other words, if that had been the case, Israel never would have made peace with Egypt in seventy nine, never would have made peace with Jordan in ninety five. And that's been beneficial to all three of those countries. And Jesus does say, blessed are the peacemakers. And Paul encourages us to live at peace with everyone that we can. So I look at it pragmatically and say, great, glad to see it for the general person walking the streets in Israel.

They're glad to see it for the general person walking the streets in these other countries. It's going to be good for them as well. But keep your guard up.

In other words, don't get complacent with it. And I imagine that Israel, with its military vigilance and knowing that several hundred thousand rockets are pointed at it, at any one moment between Hezbollah and other enemies like that, many of them financed by Iran, continue to be vigilant. And let's not let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that suddenly the Muslim world will just say, hey, Israel's our friend. And we're glad that the Jews are in land that used to be occupied by Muslims. And we have no problem with that. No, we understand their deep issues.

We understand that a good portion of Islam, even if it's 10 or 20 percent, is radical and will never accept the state of Israel. So let's be realistic, but positive. That's my that's my take on all this. But thank you again for the call and for your very kind words.

Eight, six, six, three, four truth. When we come back, we'll go from social justice and the gospel to politics and the Bible to rabbinic literature about Jesus to specific texts. Got some great calls. So stay right there. We'll get to everybody on the other side of the break. And now it's not a miracle, but it's nice. We've got one phone line open right now. If you want to call eight, six, six, three, four, eight, seven, eight, eight, four.

Doesn't happen that much on a Friday. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Look at it. Ask Dr. Brown on Facebook. OK, we go straight back to the phones, starting with Eden in Chicago.

Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown. Thanks for having me. You're welcome. So, Dr. Brown, first I want to thank you for your ministry and what you do for the kingdom. You know, I benefited from it and I just want to thank the Lord for you and your ministry. You're very welcome.

Thank you. Yeah, my question is this. I mean, it has to do with a statement that came out a couple years ago, and I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but I think the statement is called the statement on social justice and the gospel. Are you familiar with the statement?

Yeah, I don't have it memorized, but I certainly saw it. Yeah. Yeah. So my question is this. Like, I know that the statement came out a couple years ago and I'm just curious, like, what's your take on that statement and also just generally speaking, just on social justice and and a lot of the issues that are kind of connected with it, like, you know, critical race theory, intersectionality and and I believe that that statement was was released as a response to this kind of like large cultural movement taking our society. And also going along with the question.

So that's the first part of question. The second part is that after that statement came out, I feel like in some ways, like it created a further division in the evangelical world. And obviously there were people who went on to this statement and the drafters. And then there were also, I think, prominent leaders in the evangelical world. And mostly I'm thinking about people from maybe gospel coalition who but not and who refused to sign on to this statement. So and I see that, you know, this bipolarization happening in the evangelical world around the issue of justice. So I'm just curious to, you know, kind of like a two part question, like get your take on the statement and just a larger issue. And what would you make of this bipolarization where I feel like things here, genuine Christian leaders who who love God and who love the Lord and who have heart for God's people are are seriously divided over this issue. And there there seems to be even no room for disagreement.

Right. So so let's let's lay out a few of the issues. One is social justice and the way the word is used has become associated with things like critical race theory or charges of white fragility or white supremacy or systemic racism, et cetera. In other words, there is baggage associated with the term. I actually tried to use it to say, hey, we should stand for social justice as followers of Jesus and those who hold to scripture. But the moment I did, people thought that I was espousing these other things, you know, as like, where is that coming from? You know, when someone was attacking me one one publication I write for all the time, why did you allow a communist writer? It's like communist. What the world are you talking about?

But the word is just so supercharged. OK, so what I prefer to do is say, can we together pursue biblical justice? And it seems the two extremes are one where church leaders recognizing errors of the past and say that, you know, the Southern Baptists acknowledging, well, the birth of the Southern Baptists was to break with the Northern Baptists over slavery. And that's a that's not a good way to birth the denomination, you know, or, you know, the founders of a seminary or all slaveholders who justified slavery in the name of the Bible.

That's not a good heritage. So, you know, certain things come to light. And even though there's an ancient there's an older history, there are current ongoing events and you realize, OK, there's still inequalities, there's still issues. So what happens sometimes is we overdo our response instead of saying, you know, I've got a blind spot there over the years. Many, many black callers have helped fill in blind spots for me simply because I had a different upbringing.

I had a different life experience. I've never been racially profiled. And as they'll just explain certain things or perspective on police or things like that. So it just it helps me to to think in a more holistic, balanced way.

If I talk to a lot of Native Americans, that would fill in a ton of blind spots. I don't even know I have, you know, in terms of how they perceive America and so on. So anyway, sometimes we we overreact and we become so woke that it's it's it's really silly to me. It's an embarrassment. Like, what are we trying to prove? Who who are we trying to impress the world? That's not going to be impressed by us otherwise. What we need to do is get get the approval of our father in heaven.

And if he's pleased with us, let the world hate us. That's fine. So that's one of the issues where Christians become more and more, quote, progressive. And and and no, I beat their breath.

I'm so guilty of all this stuff. And like I said, hey, I don't have to apologize about America's past as as a white man myself, because I come from immigrants that came from Russia the turn of the last century. You know, Russian Jews who are probably fleeing for their own lives.

I've got no connection to the slave trade or the history or anything like that. So we can overreact. And then the statement on social justice in the Bible, the John MacArthur, my friend James White, others were involved with were really to try to push back against critical race theory and push back against some of the wokeness of the church. The problem is that in doing so, in other words, in combating the error, you may not loudly enough emphasize the areas where you do stand in common and you do feel their needs. So that could be the the critique on the other side. In other words, when we push back against an error that we may not adequately emphasize the middle ground.

So to me, the solution is very simple. We really immerse ourselves in the truths of the word and the ethics of the scripture, the ethics of the prophets, the revolutionary teachings of Jesus. We immerse ourselves in those afresh. We have an open conversation with different members of the body from different ethnicities and backgrounds. We look at America today and we say, how can we make this country the best it can be? How can we contribute it as far contribute as followers of Jesus to the best interest and the well-being of everyone in our nation? And we work together for biblical justice. And basically, if I said, hey, who's in with me on doing that?

I would expect every believer who's really committed to the Lord to say, count me in. So that's my long and short answer to an important question, which I appreciate. And so I'm not going to get caught in a micro argument. I'm going to say let's major on the macro together. Let's let's major on what we agree on together and let's move forward. Let's move forward.

We can't change the past, but we can change the present and the future. Thank you again for the call. Eight six six three four truth.

Let's go to Adam in Kansas City, Kansas. Welcome to the line of fire. Good afternoon, Dr. Brown. How are you? Doing very well. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to address two videos that you made a while back. Both in or rather both related to rabbinic literature, specifically the Talmud. I'd like to address your points made in that video or in those two videos in regards to passages in the Talmud as it relates to Christians and Christianity.

Yeah. So Rabbi Steinfeld in his recent edition of the Talmud published by Corrin makes the academic argument that there are many passages in the Talmud that actually speak of Jesus specifically. In fact, when we look at the manuscript evidence of the Talmud, specifically the Munich simile, we see that there are many references to Jesus in the Talmud. Specifically, this passage is inserted in Sanhedrin 43a, even though it actually belongs elsewhere. But in Sanhedrin 43a it says Yeshua HaNusri is the one that was hung on the eve of the Passover. And he was to be stoned for sorcery and for misleading and enticing Israel to idolatry. There are a number of other references as well, referring to Jesus in the Talmud as Bempandera, the son of Pandera, a Roman soldier. And Rabbi Steinfeld in his edition of the Talmud actually makes these arguments that it is referring indeed not to some random guy named Jesus, but specifically to the Christian figure Jesus of Nazareth. Now moreover, we see that in the Jewish Encyclopedia, there are some benedictions called Birkat Hamanim, which are basically benedictions against the heretics. Now initially, it was inserted that there was nozerim, but then it was changed to welah mal'sanim and to the informers. And the Jewish Encyclopedia says that the cause of this change in the text was probably due to the accusation brought by Christians against the Jews of cursing all Christians under the name of the Nazarene. So I guess what I want to say is, when we're looking at these texts, I think it's very important that we come at them from an academic background.

I don't think that... I don't agree with anti-Semitism, and I don't agree about using these passages as a way to frame Jews in a negative light altogether, but at the same time I think we do have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and say that these passages are... Yes, I appreciate the research you've done on that, but where do you differ with me then? Because I say that there are those that say yes, they refer to Jesus, but other top scholars say they don't, and there's a great debate over it.

So I'm not sure where we differ. I think where we differ is that the observation, both historical and otherwise, definitely proves almost overwhelmingly that there really is no... there's really no evidence for the point of view that these references are not in fact to Jesus. So why do you think some of the top scholars in the world, both Jewish and Christian, say that they don't refer to Jesus?

Do you think that they're ignorant or... No, I don't think it's ignorant, but I think because of the Shoah, I think that... No, no, I'll tell you well before that. For example, here, Lewis Ginsberg, one of the greatest Jewish scholars of the early 20th century, legends of the Jews compilation, one of the historic professors of Jewish Theological Seminary, he says, that the entire Talmudic-Madrashic literature does not know of any nicknames for Jesus or his disciples, allegedly Balaam being a code word for Jesus, etc., or John Meyer, a more recent scholar, says with regard to the mission and other early rabbinic material, no text cited from that period really refers to Jesus. And then if you look at a series of multiple videos done by Rabbi Moshe Shulman, a countermissionary rabbi, who have no problem saying that the Talmud rejects Jesus. And by the way, I've written that...

I've cited these very texts in other writings, you know, Sanhedrin 43, for example, and Maimonides references the Jewish leadership rejecting Jesus and giving him over to die. To say, yeah, that's been a position that's held to. And Verkatim Minim, written about that as well.

We understand what the early purpose of that would have been. But Moshe Shulman goes through every single reference in massive depth and says, I don't think the Talmudic rabbis say anything about Jesus. But stay right there. We'll be right back. It's the Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Get into the Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. So I have a book coming out in February called Christian Antisemitism, and there's a chapter called The Truth About the Talmud, where we get into what the Talmud really says and doesn't say. And after reviewing arguments that the Talmud does not speak about Jesus or the early rabbinic literature, I write, again, it's possible that the Talmud does make these terrible statements about Jesus.

Although counter missionary Rabbi Moshe Shulman believes that the Talmud says absolutely nothing about him. Either way, there are some anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud and in later rabbinic literature, along with some deeply anti-Christian sentiments expressed to this day, in particular in ultra-orthodox writings. But even so, it's not terribly different for a traditional Jew to believe that Jesus is a false prophet burning in hell than it is for Christians to believe that Muhammad is a false prophet burning in hell. This is blasphemous to Muslims, for whom Muhammad is the perfect man in the model of piety.

The Christians have no problem believing that at the least Muhammad is a false prophet who has lost fraternity, which is my own view. So, Adam, I did think I stated on the video that some do believe these texts refer to Jesus, but other scholars, because I've studied this for years and I have a whole library of books on the subject, say they don't think that most of them refer to Jesus. And you've got the chronology wrong, you've got him in various centuries, you've got the descriptions wrong, and things like that. So, yeah, if you think the presentation didn't say that, that's, I guess, where we would have a difference. Sure. There is an excellent study that was done by Dr. Peter Shaffer, titled Jesus and the Talmud.

Yeah, I've owned it for many years, of course. Yeah, I cite that in the book as well. In other words, and in his view, it's reacting in particular to the Gospel of John. Yeah, Adam, there's no question, you've done your homework, and there's no question that there are many historians and rabbinic scholars who do believe that there are specific references to Jesus and the Talmud that are negative. That he was born out of out of wedlock to a Roman soldier, Pantera, which could even be a play on words of Parthenos Virgin, you know, a mocking thing, that claimed that he went to Egypt as a child and learned all types of foreign arts and idolatry and led Israel astray, that he was hung at the time of Passover, that he deceived the nation, that he's burning an excrement in hell. There are those who believe that, certainly Toldot Yeshu, which is a blasphemous compilation of document or writings against Jesus, early medieval work, very, very ugly blasphemous, that does exist.

The question is, is that a reaction to church persecution of Jews, et cetera? But yeah, it's certainly possible that that's there, but they're really in-depth studies by others. And in fact, Adam, if you shoot a note to our Web site, shoot a note to info at AskDrBrown.org and ask that this just gets to my attention. We'll send you a link to Moshe Shulman's video series where he goes through all of the relevant references.

It's very slow going. It's multiple videos and explains why he doesn't believe they refer to Jesus. But thank you for the call, sir. And I appreciate it. I appreciate the the detailed study that you've done on it. And feel free to write in and we'll send you those other references. You can continue to research more, if you like. But thank you. I own the same sources and and think that they make great arguments.

I'm not sure personally, my own view is that the Talmud speaks some about Jesus, but that some of the other alleged references and the code words probably don't refer to him. That's my own view. But thank you again. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Daniel in New York City. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown.

Hey. My question was in regards to politics and the church. I've been going to Times Square Church for a very long time. I think it was there when David Wilkerson was there. I even got to participate in the rocks and the switch play, which was an amazing experience. There was people from all kinds of races, you know, black, Latino, white.

And we just had an amazing time. Dan, how long have you been going to Times Square, would you say? Starting what?

At least 10 years. Okay. All right.

Yes. So, yeah, I preached for David and Don Wilkerson, probably 40 or 50 times from like 91 to 95. And, yeah, then wasn't there for years and saw Carter Conlon while he was still pastor there, shortly before Brother Dave went to be with the Lord. And my last time at visiting was his memorial service, actually.

So many fond memories there. But go ahead, sir. Well, it's amazing. So anyway, you know, I got to participate in the cross and the switch play. A lot of miracles happened and how God brought all of us together to be in the show. So over the past few years, as social topics and politics has kind of gotten in to the church, not the pastors, but all of us, it's become extremely divisive. So first, a lot of people were getting mad because they wanted the church to really address racism and start preaching about racism.

And so a lot of people started leaving because of that. Then lately, over the past month or so, as politics has heated up, we have these intense discussions, a lot of Facebook, where you started to realize that down the line, half of us are voting one way, half of us are voting the other. And as we discussed, things become very, very heated and people start throwing moral judgments against each other.

So if you vote for this person, you know, truly, you're not a Christian. Or how can we sing in the choir? It's just like that. As it became really ugly, we all had to step back. So I wrote a real short post to a friend and a lot of people seemed to agree with that. I wanted to see what you think about it. But I said, I really think that Paul, Jesus, the disciples, always pushed away from identifying too strongly with the political system and reminding people of the internal kingdom inside of your heart. Just as Joshua asked the angel of the Lord, whose side are you on? No one's side.

Because politics is a volatile mess of narrative manipulation. Yes, I understand one party may better serve religious and constitutional freedom, but Paul always went the extra mile to not offend the different ideologies, but met them where they were. Build a bridge and begin from there. One example is where Paul goes back to Jerusalem. Tell you what, I hate to interrupt, but we're going to be short on time and I may not be able to respond to the post. So allow me to jump in.

OK, Daniel. And again, I apologize for cutting you off, but I have an article that just went live on the stream and it's entitled The Intersection of the Gospel, Culture and Politics. The Intersection of the Gospel, Culture and Politics.

You'll find it on the home page of stream.org. Again, the intersection of the gospel, culture and politics. And what I say is that what we must do is come as as children of the kingdom, first and foremost.

Right. Not citizens of America, not black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Jewish or gentile. But first and foremost, the citizens of God's eternal kingdom, followers of Jesus. We now come with his perspective and bring that to our society. But that intersects with every area of society.

So what do you do? Would it been right for the church to have stayed out of the politics when it was in the days before Abe Lincoln was president? And while we still had slavery to hate, we don't want to be divisive, we don't want controversy or you say, no, we have massive injustice and we need to see change come. How important is the slaughtering of the unborn in the sight of God? How important are religious liberties in the sight of God?

How important is biblical justice in the sight of God? So these are all these are all massive issues that we have to address and that our votes impact. Now, the problem is when you have a multiracial, multiethnic congregation like Times Square Church in New York City, you will absolutely tear the whole thing up if you start preaching one political side or another. What I believe is important is that we address the issues, say here's what the Bible says on X, Y, Z. Pray and vote accordingly. I believe it's important that we do that. That's one. And two, I think it could be helpful if we have the maturity to do it, to have an open discussion where brothers and sisters who are articulated and clear headed express their differences, express their viewpoints and say, hey, here's why I'm voting this way.

Here's why I'm voting this way so that instead of instead of heat, there can also be light. But check out my article, The Intersection of the Gospel, Culture and Politics. And may God give the shepherds at Times Square Church and other multiracial, multiethnic churches wisdom at this time. All right. Let's see. Do I have time for one more call?

Let's just try Christian in Toledo, Ohio. Welcome to the line of fire. We're really short on time, so go for it. All right. OK, what's going on, Dr. Brown?

Hey, man. I want to talk about Matthew chapter 15 verses 28. We're basically speaking to the Canaanite woman and you basically tell her that, you know, she's begging for herself when he says that basically cannot give crimes to dogs or whatever. What did he mean by that? Because I think a little bit harsh and like you explain that to me.

Yes. So so, Christian, in Matthew seven, Jesus is telling us that we need to judge rightly, that we we need to judge ourselves and take the beam out of our own eye before we take the speck out of our brother's eye. But then he also wants us to rightly understand those to whom we are ministering and those with whom we are dealing. And there are times just to focus on Matthew seven because we can't get to Matthew 15. But there are things that should not be shared with mockers, with with those who hate God and mock our beliefs. Don't share precious, beautiful truths with them, because all they'll do is mock you more and despise those very words.

So be selective with whom you share certain beautiful truths and realities. Hey, thank you for the call.