WWUTT 2550 Q&A Questionable Teachers, Christians at the Movies, The Shroud of Turin

What teachers should we associate on what biblical grounds and whom should we avoid?

Is it okay for Christians to go to the theater? And how do we respond to scientific evidence regarding the

Shroud of Turin? The answer is when we understand the text. This is

When We Understand The Text, a daily Bible commentary in the word of God, that we may be conformed to the image of Christ.

Tell all your friends about our ministry at www .wutt .com. Here once again is

Pastor Gabe. Thank you, Becky. You're welcome. Psalm 141, we begin with here.

O Lord, I call upon you, hasten to me. Give ear to my voice when

I call to you. Let my prayer be counted as incense before you and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth. Keep watch over the door of my lips.

Do not let my heart incline to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with men who work iniquity, and let me not eat of their delicacies.

Let a righteous man strike me. It is a kindness. Let him rebuke me. It is oil for my head.

Let my head not refuse it. Yet my prayer is continually against their evil deeds.

My eyes are toward you, O God, my Lord. In you I seek refuge.

Leave me not defenseless. Great word from Psalm 141. Amen. Reminders to be holy, to speak words that are pleasing unto the

Lord, to keep company with righteous men and not fools, and to receive correction from righteous men when we so need it.

Yeah. Welcome to the Friday edition of When We Understand the Text. We take questions from the listeners and you can send those questions to whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com

or go to www .tt .com and click on the voicemail tab and you can record us a voicemail.

I don't have any voicemails this week. Aw. So these are all emails and they're very random.

Okay. I mean, sometimes - All over the place. Yeah. Yeah. Sometimes we're able to follow like general subjects, but no, this time it's just a grab bag.

All right. It's a grab bag of questions today. So let's go to this first one. This actually has to do with the end of year countdown that I did going through like all the big stories of the year.

And this is from Jackson. He says, regarding Wes Hough, I agree that it was fun in 2025 seeing the opportunities he had to be on Joe Rogan and on other top ranked podcasts.

So if you remember, Wes Hough is that apologist from Toronto, Canada. Okay. He started 2025 on the

Joe Rogan podcast, seen millions and millions of times, gave some great apologetic arguments, a three -hour episode, giving great arguments in defense of the truth of scripture, shared the gospel with Rogan, or at least put it on Rogan, like what is your response to this going to be?

Okay. You know, and that's when it comes to sharing the gospel, sometimes we don't include that part. Yeah.

Yeah. Like we might just share information with somebody, but putting on them to have to respond.

Yeah. Like you have to take action here. Like, what is your choice? Right. In light of the truth of this that I've presented to you, what do you think?

Yeah. What's your response to it going to be? So it was neat that Wes, like remembered to put, after a three -hour conversation, he put that on him at the end.

So what's your response to this going to be, Joe? Which is great. That is. That's fabulous.

Yeah. So, and then Wes appeared on many other podcasts, huge podcast during the year. There was probably not another apologist that was seen more times than Wes Hough in 25.

But anyway, Jackson goes on here to say he was sharing the gospel with unbelievers, defending the veracity of the

Bible. Like you, I had heard Hough on the Cultish podcast before his ascent to apologetics fame.

But at the start of 2026, I have some questions. Wes has posted pictures giving praise to Sam Alberry, Kirk Cameron, and Gavin Ortland.

He was just recently interviewed on Gavin Ortland's podcast. Is this something that we should be concerned about?

Is it a lapse of judgment on Hough's part? Maybe he doesn't know the problems with these teachers.

I'm more than willing to hear everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about. And I've just become overly sensitive listening to too many witch hunt discernment bloggers.

Thank you so much for your ministry, Jackson. Well, I appreciate the question, Jackson. Now, in case anybody is unfamiliar with these names, because names don't automatically.

Yeah, I don't retain names very well. Don't just automatically pop in your head.

I know it's like, okay, yeah, I know who that is. You're welcome to catch me up on those. That's right. So, Sam Alberry works for the

Gospel Coalition. I mean, he's a minister in other capacities. I think actually at the same church that Gavin Ortland's at, if I remember right.

Okay. I think Sam Alberry is there. Anyway, he's from England, from the

UK, rather, I should say. Oh, okay. And he's known or let me put it this way.

He's infamously known for Side B Christianity. So, Side B is the idea that we can affirm somebody in their homosexuality as long as we tell them that you should be abstinent.

You need to remain chaste and you can't have boyfriends or girlfriends of the same sex.

Okay. You can't get married because that's contrary to what God's word says. So, essentially, it's giving permission to somebody to have lustful desires for somebody of the same sex as long as you don't play them out.

Okay. So, that's kind of Side B Christianity. Preston Sprinkle is another one of those guys that advances this.

The Crew Ministry has been on the side of Side B Christianity. Rebecca McLaughlin, I guess is her name.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's Rebecca. It's either Rebecca or Rachel, and I'm pretty sure it's Rebecca McLaughlin. Anyway, also works for the

Gospel Coalition. She's married and has children and has said that she still struggles, so to speak, with with thoughts of being in a relationship with another woman.

So, she also advocates for and gives permission to Side B Christianity. So, Sam Alberry is another one that is on that side of things.

He's somebody that has experienced, as he said, same sex tendencies. He's been involved in the past with the ministry.

I think this ministry shut down. It may be that this doesn't exist anymore. Hang on, let me double check and bring it up.

There's a ministry called Living Out. Nope, it still exists. Living Out was another one of those

Side B Christianity sorts of things. So, trying to help somebody live out their homosexuality in a faithful way.

Like, however you can. I know, Becky's giving me a look. Like, I'm trying the best

I can to explain this stuff. Yep, that's fine. As much as I disagree with it.

Faithful way. Yeah, right, exactly. Let me click on their About Us here. Anyway, I don't think

Alberry is connected with this anymore. Yeah, as I go through the names of the people that are on this site.

Oh, there he is. Yeah, Founders. They're at the beginning and still supporting us. Sam Alberry. Sam works as a pastor and apologist and is the author of various books, including

Is God Anti -Gay? And then a link to Sam's story. So, Sam is one of the founders of Living Out.

And though he's not with the organization anymore, it says on their website, he still supports us.

So, he still has a connection with this site. And I mean, some of the things

I could say about this are, it would be a whole other rabbit trail. But anyway, hopefully I've given you enough information that you get what the problem is, what the concerns are with Sam Alberry.

Okay. Encouraging somebody to maintain their same -sex attraction, as they would call it, is wicked.

It's not following what's said in Colossians 3, 5, put to death what is earthly in you. And those things that it said to put to death are sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

And you'll know all of those things have to do with the heart. Right. They all have to do with what the heart desires and what the heart wants.

Sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness. None of those things are what you do outwardly.

Like they start with the heart, and then you play that out outwardly.

Those things that are mentioned there. I mean, sexual immorality, of course, is something that is of the heart first, and then becomes something that you do with your body, but grouped together with the rest of that.

It still starts in the heart. Yeah. It's talking about what you're thinking about, what your thoughts are, where your mind goes, what your heart desires, and what it wants.

And so before Paul even gets to other sins, he starts with those confronting the lusts and the greed and the covetousness of the heart.

Right. Before what you're doing outwardly from your heart. Right. So the

Side B Christianity basically encourages people. It's not even really Christianity, but that's the name they give to it.

But the Side B perspective or approach. Yeah. They are encouraging people that you can still be, you can still have sexually immoral thoughts.

You can still be you. Yeah, right. Yeah, that would probably be the way to put it. Yeah. You don't have to give up who you are.

This is who you are. Right. Probably even go as far as say, this is who God made you to be. Right.

It's one thing for me to describe this, but if you actually listen to the way that their teachers taught, you would be even more convinced.

It's like, oh, this is bad. This is clearly not the way that we should encourage people to deal with their sin.

Right. Like you don't tell an adulterer. It's fine that you still have lustful thoughts for your neighbor's wife.

Right. That's okay. Just as long as you don't play them out. You know, nobody approaches any other sin that way.

It's okay that you want to murder somebody. Yeah, that's what I was going to next was, I mean,

Jesus even says, you know, don't. I mean, if you call your brother a name, then.

Yeah. If you call him a fool. Yeah. You're guilty of the fires of hell, which is if you have murdered him in your heart.

Right. And it's the same thing. Yeah. And you notice that these folks don't do this with racism.

Right. They don't say that it's okay that you really, really hate somebody because of the color of their skin.

Just as long as you don't go lynch them, then that's okay. Oh, my goodness. That's so true. You would never hear this kind of reasoning with any other wickedness.

Yeah. You're just born that way. Yeah. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Absolutely not. You're just born to hate somebody of another skin color.

You can't do anything about that. No. And you don't really believe that God can transform the heart and make you into a new person.

Exactly. Have you been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or not? Are you able to put to death what is earthly in you, which the spirit gives us the power to do?

So anyway, we've kind of gone on a tangent. Yeah, we have. This was... Back to the list. Yeah. Back to the...

The other people I don't know. Exactly. So that was just kind of to elaborate on what the problems are with Sam Alberry.

But honestly, even my struggle to try to articulate without any notes in front of me here to articulate the problems with Alberry.

I still have to dig back into the recesses of my mind of stuff that's happened five, six, seven, eight years ago with Alberry.

And then bring that out. Okay, here's why Alberry is a concern. This is why it would be concerning to see another brother in the

Lord partnering with Sam Alberry. And it would make you go, okay, why is that partnership happening?

Yeah. So then the other couple of names that are on there, Kirk Cameron. So Kirk Cameron, it was... And this was another story that...

Oh, I know that name. Yeah, okay. That one you know. Yeah, that one I know. This is... I'm a little more familiar with that name. This is 80s trivia now.

So yeah, that one. That's exactly why. For some reason, 80s trivia just kind of sticks for the most part.

Yeah. But yeah. I lived through more 80s than you did, but that's your bread and butter.

You love 80s. That was her firm cultural soil there was being born in the 80s.

Anyway. So Cameron obviously made news at the end of 25, although this was only a month ago.

When he said that he no longer believed that hell was eternal conscious torment, that hell is instead annihilation.

So a person may go to a place where they suffer for a little while, but eventually what's going to happen to them is

God is just going to... They just no longer exist. Exactly. He will obliterate the soul and they won't exist anymore. Annihilationism is what that's called.

Okay. So... Well, I mean, that makes me feel better, but at the same time, that's not exactly what the

Bible says. I know. And that's one of the arguments that's often made against annihilationism. It's comfortable for you.

Yeah. Makes you feel better about the fact that somebody doesn't have to burn for all eternity. Right. But of course, when we reach glory...

But I'm not sure I want their soul annihilated either. But at that point, when you're in hell, it's already been determined.

Judgment has come. Yeah. Judgment has come upon that person as we read about in Luke chapter 16.

Right. Abraham saying to the rich man, there's a chasm that's been fixed between you and us. It's so final.

You can't come over here and we can't go over there. Right. Yeah. I mean, and clearly with that story that Jesus shares in Luke 16, with that account.

Yeah. There's conscious torment that takes place in a fiery place.

Yes. So Cameron though is saying that all of that is just kind of metaphorical and figurative, but that's not really going to be the condition for a person for all eternity.

So he's given up that view of hell. Interesting. And he believes instead in annihilationism. And apparently there was a conversation between him and several other theologians about this, a round table discussion.

I don't think it's been released online yet. Okay. But I'm interested in it. It's just kind of... It might make 2026 end of review.

It'll be the 2026 list. End of year review. It's kind of frustrating though, when this guy just changed his mind.

Yeah. And we just found out that this is where Cameron sits on this subject.

And suddenly a matter of weeks later, not even a full month later, but just...

Pedal stalled on it. Yeah. Right. Just weeks later, suddenly he's seated in a round table discussion about this.

Exactly where my mind went. Like, why is he being... Why do we do this? ...questioned and looked at as like an expert in this.

He's only just made it anyway. Yeah. Suddenly just came to this understanding, just announced it.

And now he's in a... And it might be like a fluke kind of thing where you're like, oh, one day, I think this.

But he's such a prominent figure that anything he says is going to be taken seriously. Of course.

And then he's like, the next day he wakes up and he's like, well, that didn't make sense. But he can't back out right now.

Now, unfortunately, even among reformed and heavily evangelical circles, and when

I say heavily evangelical, I'm talking about those that actually go out with the gospel and share the gospel with others. Cameron has a lot of clout because of the partnership that he had with Ray Comfort.

And they did Way of the Master together. Yeah. And how many times those videos got seen of Comfort and Cameron going out and sharing the on the boardwalk and out in public and asking people about the law.

Yeah. And convicting their hearts and bringing them to an understanding of the Savior, understanding of their sin, and then pointing to the

Savior. So because of that ministry and how many times those videos have been seen,

Cameron has been viewed as a solid evangelical brother.

And if we were just leaving him in the category of he's an actor. Right. Then... That's different.

Stuff like this probably wouldn't shake us all that much. Yeah. To be like, okay, well, I mean, actors just...

Yeah. We don't really see them as paragons of sound doctrine. They change their minds all the time. Yeah, right. Wherever the wind blows sometimes with an actor, even when they're

Christian. Yeah. Not to say they're unchristian. And again, as I said, when reporting on this with Cameron, this isn't something for which

I'm going to declare Cameron a heretic. Right. But it is heterodox in the sense that it's outside of general orthodoxy that we understand to be the plain meaning of scripture and also what the church has taught for 2 ,000 years of church history.

Right. So anyway, Cameron has obviously made a lot of news regarding this.

It's a fresh thing though. And like I said, not something for which we would declare him a heretic. I'm fairly certain

Wes Hough did do a video responding to that news. Okay. And saying something like that.

He said something similar to that. I can't say for sure that's the case, but it seems like in all the different videos that I watched of people responding to Cameron's news,

I want to say Hough was in there too. And it said, it is concerning, but it's not heresy.

Right. And so he's responding to those who are ready to write off Cameron as no longer a Christian because he's changed his view on hell.

So that one of the three names that are mentioned there, really Cameron's the least concerning one.

What about Gavin Ortlin? Yeah. I don't know that name. Okay. Gavin Ortlin is the host.

I mean, it sounds familiar, but - Well, you probably know his father, Ray Ortlin. Oh, that's it.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's why it sounded familiar. So Ray Ortlin is one of the contributors to the

English Standard Version Study Bible. Okay. I believe that he was on the translation committee as well.

So he's had a lot of work with the English Standard Version. Okay. And I know for sure that he contributed notes, because when you read the

ESV study Bible, and you look at the contributors in the front, Ray Ortlin's name is in there. So a couple of those books, the study notes were

Ortlin's. Okay. He also has a son. Well, Gavin Ortlin is one of his boys.

And then he also has Dane Ortlin. Okay. Okay. He has

Dane Ortlin. Dane Ortlin is another one of his sons. I was following. And he wrote the book

Gentle and Lowly. Okay. That sounds familiar. And that's been a really popular book in a lot of evangelical circles over the last several years.

But the Ortlins socially and politically are generally seen as being liberal.

During the presidential run in 2024, leading up to the election in November, he had put his voice behind Kamala Harris.

Said that he was voting for her and that other believers should vote for her. And was just absolutely against Trump.

Now, Gavin Ortlin, who also is not for Trump. And I've been very critical of Trump as well.

Let's be honest. But Ortlin, who also is not a big fan of Trump, I don't think ever made any sort of public statement regarding we should vote for Kamala Harris.

But he has some politics and worldviews that are seen as being leftist.

For example, his views on global warming or climate change. So he's very much on what you would consider to be the

Democrat perspective of climate change. He has taken a position that the global flood in Genesis was not actually global, but it was localized.

Okay. He's taken the position that you do not have to believe that Adam and Eve were a real couple that lived 6 ,000 years ago in the

Garden of Eden. It could be hundreds of thousands of years ago. He is kind of Darwinian in his view of the creation of the world and that.

Sounds like it. Yeah. Things are actually millions and millions and millions of years old. And God has just used

Darwinian processes to get us to where we are. So some of these things that he's expressed with regards to some of those doctrinal things as well, and he'll try to base it in church history.

He'll say that Augustine was on his side of these kinds of things, and he wasn't.

I did another podcast episode on this years ago, three or four years ago, playing

Gavin Ortlin's comments and reading Augustine and saying, Augustine's not saying what

Gavin's saying that Augustine's saying. So anyway, but because of these things, the

Ortlins are largely seen to be a little bit on the liberal side. Now, having said that, that's just regards to some of those social issues, some of those creation issues that exist in Genesis 1 through 11.

Ortlin doesn't exactly have William Lane Craig's view of Genesis 1 through 11 as mytho -history, but he will defend

William Lane Craig's position in believing that about Genesis. As in like, it's a myth?

No, so mytho -history, meaning that the way that it's written is almost parabolic in a certain sense.

So like in the Garden of Eden, Satan being described as a serpent, it wasn't really a talking serpent.

Okay. And there may not have even really been an actual fruit, because William Lane Craig has made fun of this.

You mean you actually believe that there was a talking snake and that there was a fruit in the garden that they weren't supposed to eat and they ate the fruit and all of mankind fell?

Yes, actually, that is exactly what I believe. You believe that the earth was created in six literal days?

Yes, because when you read Genesis 1 exactly as it's written, you can't come to any other conclusion about that.

You have to read another view of that into the text to get something out of that. And Lane Craig will make fun of people who believe that.

It's not just a matter of a difference of opinion. Oh, wow. Like he will go out there on like making you feel bad because you believe that.

Goodness. About Genesis 1 through 11. Ortlin is not quite that extreme, but he will argue against a person who takes a literal view of Genesis 1 through 11, and meanwhile, defend a person like William Lane Craig, who though he's bashing somebody who takes the literal view, doesn't seem to want to try to unite the viewpoints or even call down Craig for being so extreme on how he'll call people out on that.

So anyway, so Ortlin has some concerning areas. Yeah. But let me say this in defense of Ortlin.

Okay. The videos that he's done going through church history, especially when he responds to claims of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic dogma, when he talks about the authenticity of Protestantism and how what we believe actually follows a continuous strain throughout church history all the way down to the apostles in the first century.

Those videos that Ortlin has done are fantastic. Oh, wow. And I don't know that there's anybody else on YouTube making those kinds of videos where they're tying everything into church history as well as Ortlin does.

And when you're watching those videos, you would probably have no idea that he sits where he does on some of the socially liberal takes that he has.

Like you find those things out by stuff that he said on X or Twitter.

And I don't even think he's on X or Twitter anymore for that reason. Yeah, probably.

Because he would tend to get called out on this stuff. So it's like, if I just stay in the YouTube world. Right. This stuff is not as easy to search and find and I get called out on these kinds of things.

Okay. So, and again, Ortlin does have some solid stuff out there. And there are things that Ortlin has done that I really do appreciate.

And sometimes he'll come up with a new video that I'll mark and think, I gotta watch that. I gotta see it.

Now, saying that about Ortlin, I wouldn't platform him. Right.

I can appreciate some of those things that he's done, especially on church history. I mean, there's all kinds of people that I listen to that aren't

Christians. Yeah. Regarding to different historical things or theological things. And I'm just able to put them through my reform filter.

Right. And know that's not exactly the way that we're supposed to understand that or, you know, something to that degree.

And Ortlin would even claim to be on the reform side. He's a Calvinist, attends a reform church. He's Baptist.

So Credo Baptist, which I think is contrary to his dad, who's Anglican.

So it's Pedo Baptist. So they aren't quite exactly the same when you look at all the

Ortlins. Anyway, so Gavin has had some solid things in there, but I'm really careful with how

I would present Gavin. I wouldn't platform him and give a full recommendation of him because of some of those cautionary areas that he's taught on regarding what scripture says.

So that being said, of these three names that are given, Sam Albury is by far the most concerning.

Cameron, yeah, but not a whole lot. And same with Ortlin.

So I don't see Wes's partnership with any of these three, really, as being something that would go, oh,

OK, well, we should have been a little bit more cautious about Wes Hough. We should have let him kind of find his feet and see what his associations were before we were ready to platform him.

No, I don't have that attitude about this at all. Hough may not be aware of any of this stuff regarding Sam Albury.

Yeah. Because even this exposure of living out, I mean, there was months of research that went into that when

Nine Marks was partnering with Living Out and stuff like that. So calling this out so that Nine Marks wouldn't partner with them anymore.

And then when it came to light that Living Out was not as legitimate a

Christian organization as they were coming across, the RLC was partnering with them. Nine Marks was partnering with them.

And suddenly now seeing now pulling back the curtain, even those organizations pulled away from Living Out.

The RLC, I don't know, they may still be doing stuff with them, but that's the RLC. So that was that was a lot of legwork to do that and to kind of expose that.

And even Sam Albury, you know, as I noted from the Living Out website, doesn't have full involvement with that organization anymore.

Right. Although it seems like the website is still including Albury as one of their founding members and somebody who still gives us a good plug every once in a while.

So that's one of those where you just kind of hope that other people will see it and understand the dangers that are there.

But that's not something that immediately we see somebody with Sam Albury and then go, well, why is he associating with that guy?

I understand the caution flag, but I also understand why somebody wouldn't know. Yeah. It's not like the

Gospel Coalition ran articles on this. These were these were people in our own kind of private blogs and sectors that were exposing this kind of stuff regarding Albury.

Right. It was never hitting any major publication. So most people just probably don't know. And being somebody, you know,

Wes Huff has written for the Gospel Coalition, which is such a grab bag. I understand the problem with TGC and I don't endorse them anymore.

We don't attend TGC conferences or anything like that. Right. But but with, you know, they'll they'll they'll still have some articles on there that'll be good.

They'll have some articles that are bad. But like I said, it's it can be such a grab bag of stuff on their website.

Yeah. Different articles about different subjects just kind of depends on what they're talking about. So I hope that kind of gives you a little bit of of closure,

I suppose, Jackson, with regards to Huff's association with any of these three teachers. Or at least a little more information. Sure. Yeah.

You know, Gavin Ortlin can still be a solid apologist, even though we don't agree with some of the places that he goes with his theology.

But at the same time, as I understand it, Huff is very kind of open about the old age creationism.

He doesn't take a hard line view either of young earth creationism. He's he's of a position on the creation of the world that I really don't know if he's old earth or young earth.

Oh, OK. So, yeah, he might end up being an old earth guy, too. I don't think that exactly.

Yeah. I don't think that discredits his ministry outright, but it's not like he's going to get invited to an answers in Genesis conference or anything like that.

Right. So just maybe some yellow flags instead of orange or red.

Well, I don't I don't know that I would. We'll see where this goes kind of thing. It's going to continue on this path and trajectory.

Or is he going to like just sort of here, there and wherever he goes?

I'm not even convinced that it's a trajectory. So it's just one of those things where you see a picture of him with somebody and you're going,

I wish it wasn't with him. Yeah. Wish he was platforming more solid people.

But it's not like I'm looking at that going, well, this is a mark on his ministry or this is a stain or something like that. Yeah, I've I've advocated for a long time about how we need to be more brotherly than we are.

And there's certain. Oh, yeah, for sure. There's certain teachers that I just won't platform.

It doesn't mean that I think that they're unbelievers or they're heretics or even heterodox.

There's just some problems with their theology that are enough that I wouldn't want to cause anybody to stumble.

So I don't give them a platform. However, I'm not going to jump on the podcast and they go, hey, they're false teachers, ignore them, stay away from them.

And then do like, you know, hour long episodes on why they're dangerous. Yeah. And there's several teachers I do that with.

There have been others that have emailed me and said, have you seen what this teacher did? This is concerning or something like that.

And I may not make it. I may not even read it. I may not even make a big deal out of it. But it's enough information for me to go,

OK, well, I recognize now that I can't recommend that teacher anymore. I cannot, in good judgment, recommend that teacher.

So I'm just not going to mention them anymore. Right. And and that's that's kind of the way that I approach that.

So those that are really dangerous, yeah, I'll warn you about them. Those that are wonderful, I'll give them full promotion.

And then some others that have some concerning areas, I just may not talk about them at all. But but that doesn't mean that I don't think they're brothers, nor does it mean that I think that they're sound teachers.

Right. You know, anyway. Yeah. I don't know. I just I think the whole world online is is a can become very dramatic, very.

Oh, heaven's sake. That's an understatement of the year. It can become dramatic and very quickly if it's not dramatic, it doesn't exist.

That's that's kind of the the world of yes, of of online relationships and associations.

Yeah. Yeah, a lot of people post just what they post because they're they're trying to get the clicks.

Yeah. And that's I had a conversation about their private conversation with a friend just a few days ago about one particular teacher that has gained all kinds of attention because of the radical things that he says.

And I said in a private conversation, I really don't know if he really believes the stuff that he's saying or he just knows it's going to trigger people.

Yeah. And so that's why he says it, because it gets clicks and he's getting revenue from it. Yeah. YouTube and X and all those other kinds of places.

So yeah, we we are not permitted to behave in that way, though, as Christians.

Very true. We've been told to speak the truth in love. So if we're doing things to set people off and trigger them, that's that's quarrelsome.

Yeah. And this is exactly as quarrelsome and divisive. And this is First Timothy six tells us that such a person who has strayed from the gospel of Jesus Christ and the sound teaching of our

Lord Christ that accords with godliness is puffed up and he's puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.

He has an unhealthy craving for controversy. Yeah. And that's exactly what such people are doing that will say this stuff online to trigger people so that they can they can activate the outrage machine and profit from it.

Right. By, you know, whatever reaction is generated from that. This is the person that this is exactly the person

Paul warns against in First Timothy six who thinks of godliness as a means of gain.

Oh, yeah. So he's using godliness in order to gain financially. And this it's in this context that Paul says the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

So it's because this person loves money and the attention that they get from it that they become triggering like this.

Yeah. And benefit reap the rewards, so to speak. All right.

Anyway, let's let's move on from there. Okay. I said this was going to be a whole grab bag of stuff. We spent a half an hour on that one.

Well, there were a lot of people. Yeah, there was some good things to talk about there. All right. This is from Terrence.

Pastor Gabe, I heard you say that some people have accused your voice of being AI, artificial intelligence.

Right. Okay. I just wanted to let you know that I took the transcripts of several of several of your episodes of what and several of your what videos and ran them through an

AI test. And the results came back that your podcast is not

AI. It's official. None of your scripts are AI generated and your voice appears to be genuinely authentic.

I just thought you would like to know the results. That's awesome. Well, I'm glad because that would be very awkward that I've been married to you for so long.

And you're like, if you were AI, that would be just. Yeah. Well, remember that episode we did about a year ago where we played the

AI doing a review of my book? Oh, yeah, that one. Yes.

So, I took a transcript of my book and put it in this thing which will generate a podcast doing a critique of your book or whatever document that you feed into it.

I had to feed it into it as a PDF file. So, it took a few minutes. It took like about 10 minutes, maybe.

But then it turns out this 20 -minute podcast of this guy and this gal talking and it sounded really good.

Yeah, it did. I mean, it would even have like the size in there whenever they would talk about a particular controversial issue that I'm responding to because most people see it this way, but the

Bible says this. And like, it would even put a sigh in there like the co -host going. It's like, wow, this sounds pretty legitimate.

So, you never know. We could get to a point where we don't have to do this anymore. We just add some questions into the thing.

Yeah. And it turns out Gabe and Becky's voice and just creates the podcast for us. And then, babe, you don't have to be up so late anymore doing this.

Well, that would be interesting, but not authentic. Right. I tried to talk her into, why don't we take the audio of our podcast and we put it into an

AI video generator and we let it just create the video of us doing it so we can have video of our

Q &As and it's all AI generated. We just put it on YouTube that way. It just felt so weird.

Because she doesn't want to do video at all. No. So, yeah. I mean, I'm not crazy about it either. No. Did you just do a...

I don't need to know my... Do an AI likeness of you? What do you call it? Tendencies or whatever.

Idiosyncrasies? Yes. Yeah. Like, I know I have them. I just don't want to think about them. Well, that reminds me of when

I've watched documentaries of animated movies and they'll show the voice actors behind certain characters and they'll watch the voice actor play out that character and take some of the mannerisms...

Oh, like Belle? Well, okay. Yes. I wasn't going to name a movie. Well, I didn't name a movie, technically.

Everybody knows what character you're talking about when you say Belle. Wasn't the movie.

That is a movie. That is not the movie. It's not in the title. Yeah. I mean, who doesn't know who

Belle is? Who do you think of when I say Belle? Well... The character Belle. Okay, fine. Anyway, yeah. But that would be an example.

So, when that actress is playing the role of Belle and the way that she would like brush hair out of her face or something like that.

And the animators are watching her do that and they incorporate that into the animated character.

So, yeah, the AI comes up with all of your little idiosyncrasies and starts... No. I wiggle too much.

No. It just makes me curious. Like, what sort of caricature will it create of us? I'm okay not messing with you.

Anyway. Okay. This next one's from Peter. Hi, Pastor Gabe. I wanted to let you know that there is an outtake in the

January 19, 2026 episode of Hear the Word of the Lord. At around 4 .42, you start to read

Matthew 22, 41. Clear your throat and then start the verse again. Thank you for creating this podcast.

It has been a blessing to listen to God's word as I get ready for work in the morning. That's so frustrating. I can't even tell you how annoyed

I was by that when I got Peter's emails. Come on. I'm so meticulous in making sure that I got all of that out of there.

And I missed one. I can't believe I missed one. Yes. That is aggravating. It also makes me wonder.

I haven't even gone back and checked it, even since I got this email from Peter. But it makes me wonder if I even bothered editing it at all.

If I just recorded it and just dumped it in there. You could have. Yeah. It might have been one of those nights.

Yeah. Could have been one of those times where, like, I read through it and I thought I got it exactly right.

Oh, yeah. That could be. It's like, wow, I didn't have any flubs in that one. I can just direct upload. Yeah. And that was dumb.

Drives me nuts. Thank you for the heads up. Thank you, Peter. I'm not frustrated at you. No, definitely not.

This one from Brian. Hi, Pastor Gabe. We just watched your movie review on David. Thank you.

We will probably save a few bucks in the theater and wait until it comes out on video. Then we can discuss it as a family.

Keep it up. And thanks from Jacksonville, Florida. I'm glad I could save you a trip to the theater.

I'm going to be honest. And I don't talk about movies a lot. And some people have asked me if I would talk about movies more.

And my reasoning for that has been that it's very subjective.

It's very opinion based. You know, it's to your own tastes.

And struggles. And right. Right. Yeah. Like, what sort of things do you struggle with seeing in a movie or hearing and dialogue and things like that?

So I just don't want to talk about movies because it is so varied in what kind of things entertain you and that you enjoy.

Yeah. That I don't want to cause anybody to stumble. I mean, even Gabe and I don't have the same tastes.

So there are some movies that we like together, that we love watching together.

Right. But. Shows, movies. For the most part, his tastes and my tastes are way different.

Yeah. So. There are movies that. And that's in the same marriage, you know. Of course. Right. Let alone, like, you know, everybody in the world kind of thing.

Everyone listening to this podcast anyway. Their own music and movies that they enjoy. I mean, there's some even

Christian artists that I love listening to on a regular basis. Artists that I've been listening to since I was a kid.

Yeah. And I don't even talk about them because that artist has come into some bad theology sense.

Yeah. Or maybe they've had some great moral failing. And unless it's something that causes me.

Like some of these artists have gone so far down the wrong way.

Yeah. That I can't even listen to their music anymore. Right. With, without thinking of that.

Right. So some, sometimes there's been moral failings that are so bad. I can't even keep a. I can't even keep my mind straight.

Just enjoy the music. Yeah. I can't enjoy the music as it is. Yeah. But even others that have like some questionable theology. I just don't even want to mention them because I think that that might cause you to stumble.

But anyway, so going back to where I started this by saying, I'm going to be honest. I love going to the theater.

Yeah, you too. I really like going to the theater and watching a movie. I always have. And I hope that even with how much streaming is catching on and movies aren't able to.

Well, they can't keep their prices down for one. Movies aren't able to generate the revenue to keep their theaters open and things like that.

There's theaters shutting down all over the place. And even though all of that is kind of taking place in the change in our technology and the way that we consume our entertainment,

I still hope there's going to be a place for theaters and there'll be theaters around somewhere that you can get together and go watch a movie.

Like a chicken fly. Yeah. Like what? During the apparently during the

Minecraft movie, there's like something about chickens or something. Oh, I don't know. Brought in live chickens and like, let them go.

I don't know. It's crazy. But it made the news. I saw the video. I know what you're talking about. But then more news, credible news people started posting that.

Credible news people. Yeah, it was it was real. Like not satire.

I mean, yeah, sure. Like actual real crazy people in the theater doing outrageous things during the

Minecraft movie, which I couldn't relate to at all. I didn't understand that. And that's not the kind of thing

I'm talking about. Well, I was talking with a couple of friends when I was just teasing when some of those videos were going around and like this just it's so disruptive and disrespectful.

It's a destruction of property. And I commented, you know, if I owned a theater, I'd pick my dingiest, grossest theater room and tell them, watch the

Minecraft movie in there and have all the fun you want. Yeah. Anyway, I've never seen the Minecraft movie.

So yeah, that's not at all an endorsement of the film. All of this is just to say,

I love going to the theater. Yes, me too. Even though we don't talk about the kinds of movies that we see, it's a great experience.

I love being able to sit in a big room and watch a giant screen and hear just quality surround sound.

It's an experience. I've always enjoyed it. And I always feel like I wasted my money whenever I go and sit in a theater and the sound is off.

Oh, my goodness. Or something happens with it. Like it means to be a flawless watching experience.

Yes. If you mess this up, I'm going to think I need my money back. Well, it's a lot of money.

I left my living room for this. I know now it's a lot of money. It's an investment for a good entertainment.

I will say I went to go see the movie Gods and Kings, and I went to go see it knowing it was going to be bad.

And I watched it to do a review because this was Ridley Scott's Moses movie.

Okay. And it was in the middle of that film. It stopped. And it took like 10 minutes to get the movie started again.

Oh, wow. And when it got done, as we were walking out, they were handing us free tickets. Oh, that was nice.

Because your movie experience got disrupted because you're so much later getting out than if everything had been on time.

Here's a free movie on us. So I got to watch that movie for free, essentially, and then come back and watch another one.

Yeah. So sometimes I'll go watch those to do reviews. I went to go see David to do a review of it.

And I took the kids with me because my children know the Bible pretty well.

Yeah. I mean, we read it on a regular basis. Yeah. So I wasn't concerned about them watching something that was going to give them wrong information.

And we talked about it afterward when we came out. So what did you guys like about that? What did you not like? Right. And everything that they said, with the exception of our eight year old, who's nine today.

She is. Today is her birthday. Happy birthday. Happy birthday, Mariah. She's nine. But our eight year old, her reaction to it was,

I didn't like the characters. They were ugly. Yeah. So she didn't like the animation. She didn't care for the animation style.

But then the older two, Zachary and Aria had very doctrinally sound comments, critiques that they made of the film.

Critiques. Yes. It was more complaints. Okay. I'll accept that.

And that's a good exercise for us to be able to watch something like that. And I don't mind taking them to the theater.

They love being able to get out. They like watching movies in the theater. Even if they didn't enjoy the movie. Right. So that was some good discussion for us as a family.

But yeah, to save the money and watch it at home and then discuss it at home. Yeah. Probably better for it.

Yeah. I went to go see it so I could do the review. So you could know about it and not have to spend the money on it.

And then ride in and ask what you thought. Exactly. All right.

I have, I guess, one more. Oh, two more. These two go together.

Okay. And we'll see if I can knock this out in 10 minutes here. This first one, Gabe and Becky. And I may have read this one before because this actually goes back a couple of months.

But so if you're a longtime listener of the Q &A, you may remember this one better than I do.

But it's possible I didn't read this one. So this could be the first time that I'm answering this one.

But the one that comes after it, I'm going to read both of these emails together. This one for sure is new. So here we go. Gabe and Becky, thank you so much for all the work you put into your ministry.

It has been a great blessing to me over a number of years, especially as I was in college. I also enjoy hearing your stories from Kansas as I am a

Kansan myself, having grown up in Oberlin. I went to college in McPherson and I'm now living in Salina with my wife and kids.

Oh, that's awesome. That's awesome. Know exactly where that is. Yes. Becky's mom and dad live just north of there until just a few months back.

And now they're... Almost a year ago. Almost a year ago. Yeah, I guess it was at the end of 24. So now they are back in Harrington.

That's where they live now. So... They still go to Salina often. We're planning on taking a trip to Kansas in March.

Yes. To go up and see them. Yeah, Lord willing. So we want to be there over spring break, get to see her folks and some other family members.

And Lord willing, even go beyond there to visit some other friends and family and other places.

But we'll see. We'll see how that goes. Okay, so Luke goes on. The recent uptick in interest in the shroud and relics has been concerning to me.

So talking about the Shroud of Turin. Yeah. Which is believed to be the burial shroud of Jesus.

So I'm grateful for you addressing it on the podcast. I've not listened to all your episodes on it, just the most recent

Q &A. So if you've already come across these and mentioned them, my apologies. I came upon the episode,

How to Fake the Shroud of Turin on the Stories Are Soul Food podcast. Indy Wilson talked about how as he studied the history of how the shroud came about, he found the guy made it using a clever way of painting.

Then he sought to figure out a way that it could have been done. So he set up an experiment to replicate it.

It is quite fascinating to listen to and I thought you would enjoy. I have also linked his article and website that he set up for it.

Thank you again. May God continue to bless your family and use your ministry to bring clarity and truth to your listeners.

I remember when Wilson did that. I was living in Kansas at the time when he did his little experiment to replicate the

Shroud of Turin. And I watched it then, but I don't really remember it that well. Yeah. So I'll have to go back and watch the link that you sent,

Luke, to kind of refresh my memory on how Wilson replicated the Shroud of Turin. This next email is from Abel.

Dear Pastor Gabe, I'm just catching up on your episodes of Luke, and I loved the facts and historical information you shared about the crucifixion and especially the burial of Jesus in the

Shroud of Turin. I have a question about that. In this video, and he sends me a link to this video,

Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire talks about all of these new scientific discoveries that authenticate the

Shroud of Turin as being the burial cloth from the time of Jesus, not a medieval forgery, as was previously thought.

Now, I'm convinced by what you shared that there's no way the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus.

But how do we respond to these who think this scientific information, this new scientific information makes it legitimate?

How do we even know the science is real? And how do we refute it?

What about those people who say that no one has ever been able to duplicate the Shroud, and they use that as a proof for its authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus?

Thank you in advance. So, going back to Luke's email, Luke mentions that Indy Wilson thinks that he was able to duplicate or replicate the

Shroud. The process, anyway. Right. And then Knowles and some other people, and I've definitely heard this comment before.

Anytime I've posted on X about how the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus, I get comments from people going, then how did they do it?

Yeah. How did they duplicate it? Like, that's an argument for how the Shroud must be authentic.

Let me go to this video from Michael Knowles, and it's a few minutes here.

So, I'll play this stuff that he shares about the Shroud of Turin, and then I'm going to tell you how do we refute this scientific information, and what do we rely upon to know for sure that the

Shroud of Turin, this Roman Catholic relic, this thing that they claim to be the burial cloth of Jesus, how do we know it's not?

Here's Michael Knowles. This is from Italy's Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council.

Scientists have just conducted a study on the Shroud of Turin. For those of you who don't know what the Shroud of Turin is, the

Shroud of Turin is the purported burial cloth of our Lord, of Jesus.

And the burial cloth appeared for the first time in public around the 14th century.

So, skeptics have said for a long time, this is a medieval forgery, this is not really from antiquity, this is not really the cloth that Christ was wrapped in after he was taken down from the cross.

You read in the Bible that Joseph of Arimathea, who had this big tomb, wrapped

Jesus in this cloth and he was buried, entombed, and then he's resurrected.

So, skeptics don't know how to explain this Shroud. What's odd about the

Shroud, though, is there is this faint image of a man on there, but it doesn't appear to be paint, there does appear to be maybe a little bit of blood, but it's not all blood.

What's even stranger is the image that's on the Shroud appears to be a photographic negative of the image of a man, somewhere between 5 foot 7 and 6 feet tall, a man who appears to have been tortured, a man who appears to have a crown of thorns on his head, a man who appears to have been crucified.

But it's a photographic negative, as if it were produced by a spurt of light rather than paints or anything like that.

And no one's known what this is. Now, just to stop in there for a moment, so the claim is,

I don't know that he elaborates on this that much, but the claim is that because or when

Jesus was brought back from the dead, that apparently there was this burst of light. Oh, right.

And so it's the explosion of light as he comes back to life, which already is hugely speculative.

Yeah. Because the Bible doesn't say anything to us about Jesus coming back to life with a burst of light, even that he came out of the tomb in a burst of light.

And so this burst of light is what created this photo negative on the shroud so that we therefore have the image of the man coming back to life.

OK. OK. Anyway, that's what he's that's what he's talking about there. Let's go on a little bit further, as it is something akin to a photographic negative.

No one can really understand how that would have appeared, even if it were a medieval forgery from the 14th century. Well, we didn't have photography back then.

How what is this thing? So in the 1980s, there was a study that used radiocarbon dating to test when the shroud was made.

And in the 1980s, scientists concluded, oh, it's from the Middle Ages. So it can't be the burial cloth of Christ because it's not from antiquity.

This is a medieval forgery. And that's what most people know about the Shroud of Turin, if they know anything at all. So that basically through the radiocarbon dating, they dated it to the time that the shroud was discovered.

OK. And it was like, well, therefore, there you go. It was a forgery. Right. The guy that came up with it and turned it in as this is the burial cloth of Jesus.

It was clearly he was either duped or he did it himself. Right. Exactly. Yes. Somebody either fooled him into thinking that this was legitimately the shroud or he came up with it.

And and it's been fooling people ever since. Right. So Knowles goes on to say there's now some scientific information that ties it back to the first century.

OK. OK. However, there were always some questions about those studies. What part of the shroud were they testing?

Was there any contamination or was the radiocarbon dating precise? Well, now there's a new study that appears to be a little bit more precise.

The study measured the aging, the natural aging of flax cellulose in the shroud and converted it to time since manufacture.

So it studied eight small samples of the fabric of the Shroud of Turin, put them under an

X -ray, uncovered little details about the linens and the cellulose structure and patterns because the cellulose is made up of sugar molecules that break down over time.

So you can reverse engineer this and figure out how old the garment is. And the study discovered that the shroud, the material of the shroud has measurements that are analogous with samples whose dating, according to historical records, goes back to the first century.

It's analogous to samples that they have from 55 to 74 AD. So almost precisely at the crucifixion.

Now, the team also compared the Shroud of Turin with linen samples from the

Middle Ages from the 13th and 14th century when, according to the 1988 study, the shroud was supposedly forged.

However, the samples didn't match. They were totally different. So it couldn't have been from the 13th or 14th century.

It has to have been from the first century. It has to have been, well, pretty much from exactly the moment that our Lord was crucified.

So why was the 1988 study wrong? Well, according to the lead author of this study, Dr. Liberato De Caro, he said that the fabric samples are usually subject to all kinds of contamination which cannot be completely removed from the dated specimen.

So, for instance, if the cleaning procedure of the sample is not thoroughly performed, the carbon -14 dating is not reliable.

OK, I'm just going to stop it there. Then he goes on to talk about, yeah, all the other different scientific information.

But you get it. The arguments now regarding this new information that's come out about the Shroud of Turin, it's definitely dated back to the first century.

It's got to be authentic. It's got to be legitimate. This is the burial cloth of Jesus. So how do we refute that?

How do we respond to that and say, no, it's not from the first century. It is a forgery that comes from the Middle Ages. There's no way that this could be the burial shroud of Jesus.

And then somebody says, oh, well, then how do you duplicate it? If we are unable to duplicate the

Shroud of Turin, does that make it authentic? Does that mean that it's got to be the burial shroud of Jesus?

No. The answer to all of this is no. It does not matter. It does not even matter if they can conclusively date it back to the first century and say that that's when this cloth originated from.

It doesn't even matter. It's not the burial cloth of Jesus, period. I mean, really, do you think that God is going to leave something behind that we will make an idol out of?

I mean, he might. I don't know that. Yeah. I don't know that I can legitimately say.

I think he would get rid of everything. I think he has. Yeah. But I don't know that. I think that's kind of subjective, though.

I don't know that we can conclusively say God would have gotten rid of all those relics. So I'm just saying I'm not saying that I know

God's thoughts. I'm just saying, realistically, I don't see God as leaving something behind that we would make into an idol.

Well, I have made the argument that in God's providence, he's not allowed these things to be preserved because that's exactly the way that we would treat them.

Right. I can't say objectively or conclusively that that was his aim and he was going to ensure that those things were not going to be used or utilized in the present day for purposes of worship.

Yeah. So we can know God's obliterated those things and therefore anything that shows up is inauthentic.

You know, I can't really take that position. But like with the original autographs of the

New Testament books, for example. So everything that we have that is the oldest manuscripts of the

New Testament books that you can read in your Bible, the originals that would have been written in Greek.

We don't have the originals. Right. We have copies of copies. But we can still know through those copies enough of those copies that we have more copies of the

New Testament than any other work in antiquity. And we can know through those copies exactly what the original said, even though there's variations in some of those copies.

Right. We can still through the variations spot exactly what the original would have said. And I've made the argument that perhaps

I can't say this conclusively either, but perhaps one of the reasons why we don't have the originals, why

God ensured that we wouldn't have the originals is because people would elevate that as being something to worship.

Yeah. And it's not the original that is the most important thing.

It's the message that comes from it. That's what we need to be paying attention to. Yes. And listening to not that.

Well, we've got this was actually John's sweat on this page. Right. Because we all know what the

Roman Catholic Church would do with that. Oh, my God. So anyway, with regard to the shroud.

So coming back to the shroud, how do we know? We know for sure. And I don't have a single doubt in my mind when

I say this. It is not the burial cloth of Jesus. How do we know that?

How can I say that it doesn't matter what the scientific evidence says? And it doesn't matter that it can't be duplicated.

So what am I resting upon when I'm making that claim? What the Bible says.

What's it say? The shroud of Turin cannot possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus because of what

Scripture says. John, 1940, after Jesus died on the cross, they took the body of Jesus and bounded in linen cloths and with and with the spices, as is the burial custom of the

Jews. Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden and in the garden, a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.

So because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. So he was buried according to the custom of the

Jews. Okay, that's number one. Then when we get to the resurrection in John chapter 20,

Peter and John go running to the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran

Peter and reached the tomb first. John loves to add that little part that he runs faster than Peter. Verse five, and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.

Then Simon Peter came following him and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a place by itself.

The Shroud of Turin is one piece. Yeah. There is no face cloth.

True. It's one piece that wraps around from top to bottom. So it's vertically around the body, the way that the shroud would have covered whoever would have been in it.

I have my doubts that it was even used as a burial cloth at all. But just to say, whoever was buried in it, it's over the head, which was not even the custom of the

Jews in the way that they buried anybody. That's not the way they did it. Right. We do have record of bodies in the first century in the way that they were prepared and buried.

And it was not with a single piece of cloth that went head over heels around the body.

It was a piece of cloth that went around the body all the way up to the neck. And then the head was wrapped by itself.

So that's what's talked about there with the head piece, that the face cloth, which had been on Jesus head, was not lying with the linen cloth, but folded up in a place by itself.

There have been bodies discovered. Well, at least one in particular that I know of the only authentic first century burial shroud ever discovered in Jerusalem itself.

There have been other accounts that people have read and through the documentation, knowing how it was that the Jews prepared bodies for burial.

But excuse me, but just recently. And there we go. Peter, I just cleared my throat.

I'm going to have to go back and clear that one out. I'm not even going to remember that I did that when we're done with this episode.

Anyway, so with the discovery of that body, it was discovered in a tomb exactly as it had been described that bodies were prepared and buried.

And it also matches the way that it's described that Jesus was prepared and buried. It confirmed it all.

It confirmed it all. And it's not like the Shroud of Turin. There's no way the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus.

Period. Case closed. And any of those arguments really don't matter. Well, the scientific evidence. Well, nobody's able to duplicate it.

I don't care. I don't even care if you can somehow manage a way to date it to exactly 30 or 33

A .D. And you can say, that's the year that it came from. Doesn't matter. It was not the burial shroud of Jesus.

Whatever it is, wherever it came from, that's not what it was. So, yeah. And what does it matter anyway?

Like, it has nothing to do with your salvation. Yeah. Should not have to do with our faith or anything else.

Yeah. And I've heard Roman Catholics tell me again, because I stir this controversy up online whenever I post something about the

Shroud, Roman Catholics have told me that I act like an atheist or I even doubt my faith.

How can I truly call myself a Christian and say that I believe because I won't believe that the Shroud of Turin is legitimate? Why do

I need that to have anything to do with my faith? That's just utterly absurd. But this is also the deceptiveness of those religions that will elevate these relics to the point of you have to believe this or you don't have faith.

That is contrary to saving faith. So, that kind of guilt you into that, huh? Yeah, right. We are saved by grace through faith and not by relics.

I mean, Ephesians 2, 8 and 9 says not by work so that no one may boast, but not by relics. Right. We're not saved by relics.

We are saved by we heard the message of the gospel. We believed in Jesus Christ and by faith in him, our sins are forgiven.

We are reconciled to God and we have the promise of everlasting life. Amen. That's it. And that's how you respond.

That's right. That's how you respond to it. You go to the scriptures. You respond to the scriptures. Doesn't really matter what the evidence says.

And I mean, you can frustrate the person that's trying to spout off all these facts. Yes. Like, look at all this. Doesn't matter.

Scripture says this. Yeah. So that's how we know. Exactly. Anyway, appreciate your question,

Luke and Abel. Yes. Luke is Abel. Luke and Abel. Anyway, I was trying to come up with something funny with their names and it was just silly.

Well, that's it. That's our week for this week's Q and A. If you would like to submit a question to the broadcast, send it to whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com

or send us a voicemail, go to wwutt .com. Click on the voicemail tab and you can record us a voicemail from your phone or your email.

Babe, let's finish with prayer. Yes, let's. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time together. Thank you as we consider the things that are in this world and our hope that is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, that we can continually come back to your scriptures to be reminded of the good news.

What Jesus Christ did for us, dying on the cross for our sins, rising again from the dead.

And by faith in him, we are forgiven and have everlasting life. We know that message.

Give us the boldness and the clarity to share it with others. And though we as Christians are going to disagree on certain things regarding scripture,

I pray that we still have an interest and a desire to maintain the brotherhood in a spirit of peace.

We are unified together in Christ, though there are differing doctrinal opinions that may separate us to some degree, even like where we go to church or where we worship.

May it not separate us in that eternal glory that we've been promised in Christ Jesus. The basics of the gospel are still there for all of us who are brethren and we're able to regard one another and treat each other in brotherly and sisterly ways.

As we come into the weekend and we head to church, Lord, keep us safe. I think of City's Church.

We didn't get the chance to talk about that in the broadcast, but City's Church that was overwhelmed by that mob last week.

I pray they have a record attendance this week and that justice is done on those people that came and disrupted their service and terrorized some people in the process of doing so.

Lord, keep us safe as we come to worship. We pray for our brothers and sisters around the world who don't enjoy some of the religious freedoms that we have here in the

United States. And I pray that they continue in boldness to attend church, to worship

Christ, to continue in the gospel of peace. Though the world will hate us, as Jesus has said, it would.

It doesn't shake us. We remain steadfast. And to him who is able to keep us from stumbling and deliver us into your presence with great joy, we give all honor and glory and praise.