>>17867771
>It is false because it would put them in direct disagreement with the Bible.
That's just a matter of interpretation and so it's you vs them. There are Christian feminist women who still think their husbands are the man of the household for example
>no Christian can be a feminist
No true Scotsman? The fact is people who claimed to be Christian invented feminism. And you're saying it's false because someone (You) who claims to be Christian as well says they were wrong.
>They must actually prove they are Christian.
The same applies to you. Your Church being granted ultimate authority is just a dogmatic belief and not something that has been demonstrated.
>If theoretically everyone was in favor it wouldn’t need a dicatorship
Well yes that's precisely what I mean. However the reason they often fell into dictatorships is because people don't want to just give up their resources to the state. It's just a practical tool they employed to get to their ideal state which does not require dictatorships in and of itself
>>17867829
>Jesus was testing him.
St Justin Martyr thinks God was simply referring to the Father alone like I am saying. I am not implying that Jesus is sharing anything of the sort here, that would be literal shirk and is thus the worst form of blasphemy.
>The angel also is not a creature, as Moses saw no *form* from the bush at Horeb (Deuteronomy 4:15)
That doesn't follow, we believe God was not literally in the bush (he doesn't get contained by creation), he can simply project his speech however he sees fit. That being said I still don't see how this refutes the concept of divine agency for Moses and Aaron. It's just another instance where God can represent himself but it doesn't mean he cannot have others represent him ever, even as God or to do the actions of YHWH specifically. I will reply to the rest when I get back inshaallah