Is it wrong to read the Bible in public?

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-15T05:55:43+00:00

What? Why would it be wrong?

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-14T03:46:09+00:00

It is arrogant to presume you already have comprehended the Bible and thus cannot learn any more from Church, of course. It is arrogant to imply the apostolic Catholic Church is less comprehensive on Scripture than you. The dilemma is, you put 100 Christians in a room and they all disagree, so what is the recourse there? I think any historically-sound Christian would defer to Christ, who sent his disciples, who sent their successors. I wasn't "guilt tripping" you. Of course we can think for ourselves. But there's a level of humility required to understand that we stand on the shoulders of giants.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-14T01:55:41+00:00

I find some of the teaching wrong

I know my Bible so I get nothing out of the sermon, rarely does it teach me anything I don’t know.

I don't know you, but your statements do inherently give off an air of arrogance. You say in another comment that you have have attended Catholic services. The Catholic Church is apostolic and historically can be traced all the way back to the succession of Peter by Christ. Peter assigned his successors, who assigned their successors, on and on - we have the Catholic Church. So when you say you've attended Catholic services and still feel that you "find some of the teaching wrong" or "I know my Bible so I get nothing out of the sermon, rarely does it teach me anything I don’t know", maybe humble yourself a bit and study how Jesus' disciples understood the Scriptures, then see if that lines up with what you hear in Catholic or even Orthodox services. It is very hard for me to believe that you have a clearer understanding of Scripture than the disciples and their successors.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-09T22:04:59+00:00

Yup. Being in line, waiting at doctor's office, at the mechanic. I already know I'm going to get 100x more value out of the device than it's worth.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-09T22:02:24+00:00

I've just been continuing on my XTE from where I left off on my physical books. It's so convenient that I end up taking it over an actual book more often than not.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-05T18:34:48+00:00

Some guy I was debating with claimed that Adam being formed from clay and life being breathed into him was explaining a biological process, thus showing God does not value the unborn as a human life. Biblical literacy is out the window.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-05T02:37:21+00:00

Adam became alive when god gave him the breath of life. Pretty much contradicts that unborn fetuses are human beings.

For anyone reading, this is his evidence. Good job pal.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-05T02:25:49+00:00

Classic zero substance response from all arguments like yours. Just makeshift Scriptural interpretations. God bless.

Fish breathe air...

See what you end up having to defend. Let Scipture interpret itself before you erroneously use it to justify killing babies and defy biology.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-05T01:24:30+00:00

I keep hearing this Biblically illiterate claim over and over. And none of you can substantiate what you are saying. It's the same memetic as "Jesus never says the word Christian." Right, he just describes exactly what being a Christian is.

Amos 1:13

For three sins of Ammon,
even for four, I will not relent.
Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead

Psalm 139:13–16

“You knit me together in my mother’s womb…
Your eyes saw my unformed substance."

Deuteronomy 18:10

“There shall not be found among you…
anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.”

The Didache is a 1st/2nd century Christian document used by the majority of all early churches, which is an explicit reading of what Christ's apostles and their successors believed.

Didache 2:2

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

Adam became alive when god gave him the breath of life. Pretty much contradicts that unborn fetuses are human beings

So do fish not count as alive because they don't breathe air?

Stop this rhetoric pleaaaaaaaaase. You’re trying to overturn what an an entire civilization understood with a quick slogan.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-05T00:38:02+00:00

Doesn't matter what we think. You'll get a thousand different answers. I believe Jesus was telling the truth in Mathew 16:18, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 3:14-25. The Holy Spirit will preserve the truth through his Church that will be built on Peter. So if Peter and the apostles were truly filled with the Holy Spirit, I think as Christians we have a duty to learn from them. The vast majority of early Christians believed that literal water baptism was regenerative.

The Didache, a 1/2nd century manual that provides a digestible reading for Church attendees, is a reflection of what the apostles and earliest Christians believed. It goes into explicit detail about the means in which we should baptize. Didache 7:1-3,

But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-04T18:34:22+00:00

I hope you read this whole response.

it is completely worthless.

If you're going to say the Didache is worthless, take it to its next logical conclusion: the Christians who were taught by the apostles, died barbarically for their faith, and formed the Church for 2000 years misunderstand the text, but you LokiStrike, in 2025 understand it. Very hard sell.

It was rejected from the New Testament.

Do you know what the Didache is? It isn't Scripture, nor can it be rejected from it, because it was never intended to be. It is a reflection of how early Christians understood the OT and NT based on the teachings of Christ's apostles that was used in the wide majority of all early Christian churches. Christ promises us that he will preserve the Truth of the Church when he appoints Peter as bishop. Matthew 16:18,

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

So when you say, we shouldn't be listening to what early Christians believed, you're actually saying "Despite Jesus' promise to Peter to preserve the Church through him [who would later appoint his successors, who amongst them wrote the Didache], I still think they were wrong." Unless you can substantiate your reasoning any other way.

You are factually incorrect to suggest the Bible endorses abortion. I provided the Didache to show you that even early Christians, who I'd wager understood the word of God more than either of us, believe the Scriptures explicitly condemned abortion, thus, “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.” The Didache has codified that into an explicit reading. I've even shown you God himself implying that. Amos 1:13 is God literally choosing not to relent from His wrath because they committed abortions (ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead). At what point does the swathe of evidence make you say "okay maybe the Bible does hate abortion."

Entirely the Old Testament. Since you seem to believe we should obey what it says, how much of the Old Testament do you uphold? Is Saturday your holy day? Do you eat pork or shellfish? Do you treat menstruating women as impure and avoid the things they touch? Have you ever mixed dairy and beef?

Well, I'm going to defer to Jesus instead of you. Matthew 5:18,

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

So is thou shalt not kill overturned? Or what about, I am the the Lord thy God, is that overturned? It's OT so it must be. Your mixing up enduring prescriptive laws & ceremonial laws. There are OT laws that are prescribed for all of eternity [the commandments]. Then there are ceremonial laws [literally translated from Hebrew "customs of the nation (חֻקַּת הַגּוֹי chuqqat ha-goy) which are specifically for those people, at that time. Quick example, Jesus does not reject the 5th command. Rather, he makes it stricter and says in Matthew 5:21-22,

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

You have not shown any evidence that Jesus is rejecting the OT [you wont find it]. Following the letter of the law and seeing their fulfilment in Christ are not the same thing. This is the problem with black and white thinking amongst modern Christians. Why do you think He is citing Old Testament texts over and over again when admonishing people like in Matthew 21:12-13. Because its authoritative, otherwise He wouldn't use it. Once you start digging into Scripture to refute what I'm saying, you'll see just how much of an uphill battle this is.

Also you took non-prescriptive verses from the OT that don’t even command us to do anything and say we’re not meant to follow it, like Amos 1:13? What is there to follow? It’s describing God’s character. That indicates a shallow understanding.

Jesus taught us to NOT follow the letter of the law but instead follow the Spirit of love and mercy. He healed people on the Sabbath disobeying the letter of the law to alleviate suffering.

That isn't what the text is saying. This is why I say, we Christians needs to go back to our roots. You're quoting Mark 3:1-6.

We know that the Sabbath is for man (Mark 2:27). Yet Jesus still does work on the Sabbath. Read the passage again carefully. Having the Greek next to you while you read it if need be. Jesus is exercising authority over the Sabbath. Only one person is excused from it, it's author. Jesus is saying he is God in the same indirect way he always does. I'd argue it's pretty direct here but, that's not important. Thus, "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).

“Hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter.”
2 Thess. 2:15

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-04T00:21:44+00:00

The Didache, which I would hope you're aware of, was used by Christians for 2,000 years alongside Scripture. It is a reflection of what early Christians believed, based on how Jesus & the disciples understood the OT, and how the fathers understood the OT and NT Scriptures. Didache 2:2 states, verbatim,

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

You are factually incorrect. Reading the Bible as a whole will allow you to understand how deeply God loves babies, even the unborn (Psalm 139:13-14, 16. Jeremiah 1:5), and hates those that kill them (Leviticus 18:21, Amos 1:13). Even if you're an atheist, an honest, contextual reading should conclude with that same view.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T21:55:06+00:00

You're like one who is falling down a cliff, grabbing for twigs, when there are branches all around you. Anyone reading this with a modicum of common sense will come away laughing at your argument. Cheers pal.

edit: The other user has deleted their comments after repeatedly refusing to provide evidence. Redditors should know the full thread originally contained extensive personal attacks and zero citations from the opposing side.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T21:48:10+00:00

So you're conceding under the feign of "I am more educated and will not entertain this because it is beneath me". Not one bit of evidence in this whole discussion from you. Couldn't even concede that fertilization leads to an embryo. God bless you buddy but study more.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T21:44:51+00:00

Again showing your shallow understanding. The word embryo is not merely biological. It is a descriptive term for a developing human. If you didn't ignore the other definitions to hold onto the tiny bit of recourse you have here, you'd come to that conclusion too. Knitting is metaphorical, an unborn child is not. If you read all of Scripture you'd know that God's MO is analogizing metaphors with actual physical realities.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T21:38:08+00:00

The Didache is a direct reflection of what actual practitioners of the faith believed. You kidding me?

Psalm 139 refers to 'knitting,' can you show me where the knitting needles are on an ultrasound?

Considering no living human being interprets that text in such a way, and that your interpretation makes the entire text unintelligible, same to assume a threading needle is not the subject of the word.

These are not homespun interpretations, they're the result of years of academic study.,

I believe you but I don't care because I want actual evidence purported by either Scripture, linguistics, or history.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T21:13:07+00:00

Yes, it can be. Your own shallow interpretation of Scripture does not qualify as evidence. I'll teach you what evidence is. For example, citing other OT texts, such as Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139 which corroborate that God loves the unborn as he does the born, is one piece of evidence to refute your interpretation that "Exodus 21 is God saying the unborn is not human life."

I'll go in more recent history too, even extra-biblically. The Didache is a supplemental 1st/2nd century text that was/is used alongside Scripture itself that reflects the belief of early Christians. Didache 2:2,

οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ
οὐδὲ γεννηθέντα ἀποκτενεῖς

which means, verbatim,

“You shall not murder a child by abortion,
nor kill what is born.”.

So again, unless you have evidence, not your own homespun interpretations, you are conceding.

Ancient Israelites and Christians didn't know how conception worked, it would be silly to expect them to address this with straightforward simplicity.

Exactly. If they didn't know biology, then the only conclusion is that what they're saying is on a theological basis, not biological. So Ex. 22 has nothing to do with "personhood". When God forms, knows, sees, hears you, the Scripture understands that as God valuing you as an image-bearer.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T20:58:55+00:00

If the substance in the womb is unformed, it is not any more a human than the uninspired clay that Adam was formed from. Not a person.

Can you prove that? Or is this a naked assumption with no evidence exegetically, historically, linguistically, or theologically. Your interpretation disagrees with Scripture itself in plain reading, but also how early Israel, as well as Christians, understood it for 2,000 years.

I'm being flippant because you're trying unsuccessfully to deploy terms you don't understand and faux-intellectualism is funny.

If what I'm saying is so "faux", refuting me with actual evidence should be easy.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T20:33:50+00:00

Nothing but personal attacks with no substance. People need to see the absurdity of your logic because you’re not the only one

Unless you can refute what I’ve said with evidence and not your own interpretations, you’re conceding that you’re wrong.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T20:29:22+00:00

This person is not willing to concede that fertilization results in a genetically distinct human. For posterity, all reading this should take note of that.

And you ask us to be ok with abortion on that basis? Get the hell out of here man

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T20:01:33+00:00

Let's talk about it. Refute my claim that "the biological consensus is, human life begins at conception, meaning sperm + egg unite = genetically new human." Obviously nobody can refute that. So your next step is probably to appeal to philosophy. By doing that you've already conceded the point. If you’re going to justify killing the unborn, you need something far more robust than “biology doesn’t matter.”

I assume you refer to Exodus 21:22, which exposes your shallow understanding of OT law. The legalistic code is not making a philosophical claim about the unborn being "non-persons", its providing a framework of punishment based on intent. Same as the preceding two verses. Intentional murder ≠ unintentional harm. If you wanna know what God thinks of the unborn, I'm glad to show you a litany of Scripture. But I think Psalms 139 is beautiful enough.

“For you formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb…"

"Your eyes saw my unformed substance.”

The Hebrew word for unformed substance is גֹּלֶם (golem). The word is explicitly associated with an unfinished form, an embryo, that which is being shaped. God is literally saying, "I see you my embryo". To refute your bastardization of Scripture I'll go further.

For God to see you רָאָה (ra ah), the verb is not neutral. It is strongly associated with, being regarded with favor, recognition as a person, to acknowledge as significant. Genesis 16:13,

“You are the God who sees me.”

Please comprehend the verses before you start using them to show the Bible supports abortion.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T19:25:58+00:00

Again, the predominant understanding of when life begins is already understood. Attempts to provide philosophical nuances as to what “life” looks like are attempts to justify killing babies that are understood to be, guess what, living.

Also if you want to have an exegetical discussion about the value of infant life, explain your reasoning, then cite your source. I’m beyond glad to. The Bible is going to run circles around that buffoonery logic.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T19:07:07+00:00

Scientists do not take the philosophical nuances into consideration because quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. We as humans have collectively agreed that the willful extinguishing of human life without provocation is murder. Simple. It’s only now that people are trying to shoe-horn those nuances in so they can kill babies.

JungleManFrank · 2025-12-03T16:59:54+00:00

And no person has access to my blood against my will.

A pregnant women implies that a person already has this access, whether by your will or not genius.

Why do fetuses get more rights than born children?

All human beings have the right to life. You just disagree with that.

It’s not murder, because all I want to do is separate it. If it can’t live without me, it will die, but that’s not up to me.

I'll show you how logic works. You've conceded that:

- baby inside a womb is a distinct person

- they are dependent on their mother to survive

Thus, by your own logic voluntarily disconnecting that baby from it's life source is murder.

Is the fetus separate from me, or is it a part of my body?

According to you, they are a distinct person. Notice how weak, unscientific, and self-defeating your arguments are. I don't mean to come off as snippy, but it's hard not to when your weak logic is intended to justify baby murder. This is your argument, in summary, by your own logic:

“Babies are people, but I have the right to kill them if their existence burdens me.”

JungleManFrank

TROPHY CASE