On the Coptic-Armenian-Ethiopian Churches

Orthodox Christians frequently complain about the way that our popular culture categorizes Christians as either "Catholic" or "Protestant."  We hasten to point out that a third category (Orthodox) also exists.  Yet, in using three categories, we do a disservice to the fourth "branch" of Christianity: the non-Chalcedonian churhces.  These are the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, which defined the Church's current language about the Incarnation.

I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council.  In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts.  The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion).  The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian.  Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes. 

What is it that still separates us?  Continue reading!

Scriptural Evidence for the Incarnation

In posting on Christianforums.com I've run into some interesting perspectives on the Incarnation of Christ.  When I taught church history, I liked to tell my students that there was "no new heresy."  That isn't entirely true, but it IS true that many of the non-Orthodox teachings floating about in our society today are complete re-hashings of old heresies.  In particular, ebionism (the idea that Christ was a mere man) and arianism (that the Son of God is a created being, less than God the Father) have stormed back.  They've become so ubiquitous that I've begun seeing them appear casually even among traditional Christians who just don't know any better.

For the secular humanist who likes Christ's teachings, ebionism is an attractive option.  Asserting Christ's pure humanity, and denying His divinity, leaves one able to affirm His ethical teachings without all that messy supernatural stuff.  Most people of this sort that I know really like the Gospel of Matthew.  Aside from the fact that it contains the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the single best summary of Christ's ethical teahcings), it also has a reputation for focusing heavily on Christ's fulfillment of the role of Messiah - that is, on Christ's humanity (this in contrast to the Gospel of John, which focuses more on His divinity).

I don't think that's accurate, though.  Matthew may not be as direct (to us) about the divinity of Christ, but there is plenty of evidence throughout Matthew which implies that Matthew intended his reader to see Christ as above and beyond all the prophets - indeed, as God Himself.

A bulleted list of references after the jump!  Yay!

The Historicity of the Canonical Gospels

It is no mystery that non-theists frequently attack the historicity of the canonical gospel accounts.  Why? Because probabilistic argumentation for Christ's divinity and resurrection hinge on the basic historicity of the New Testament texts.  When arguing that the Christian explanation of the claims of Christ and the events surrounding His resurrection are the most rational, non-theists have to reply with an alternative explanation for those claims and events.  The problem for them, however, is that any reply they make is (in essence) pure speculation since they have no available counter-sources from which to draw.  In order to forward their alternative explanation as even remotely plausible (rather than mere wishful thinking) they have to debunk the historicity of the Gospel narrative. 

In order to forward the generic arguments in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection, Christians need historical evidence for the following: Christ claimed divinity; Christ was thought to be an historically real human being; Christ died; There was an empty tomb / a missing body; and the Apostles, broadly speaking, believed these things to be true

If these things are true, then the probabilistic argumentation in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection hold. IE) the alternative explanations are probabilistically less likely because they are speculative whereas the Christian explanations fit with the earliest sources. Non-theists typically argue against these texts in the following ways:

• They contradict each other
• They show signs of literary craftsmanship
• They are late in developing / composition
• They are all from one side of the issue

Counter-arguments after the jump!