Oriental Orthodox Christianity

Martyrs for the Glory of God! Hallelujah!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_kidnapping_and_beheading_of_Copts_in_Libya

That's not what I meant by it's fruit.

Also why is there one black guy in the middle of all the Jesus?
Why do Iconography look so unappealing now?

Their martyrdom is a testimony of Kingdom of Christ. For they, even with blades on their necks, refuse to renounce Christ, and unto their last breath, have Christ still on their lips, for they know that their deaths will be compensated with life eternal in His Kingdom.

Why not? There's also his two women in the picture.

>why is there one black guy
"It was later learned that the 21st martyr was named Mathew Ayairga and that he was from Chad. He was originally a non-Christian, but he saw the immense faith of the others, and when the terrorists asked him if he rejected Jesus, he reportedly said, "Their God is my God", knowing that he would be killed."

>Why do Iconography look so unappealing now?
Your European cultural bias is showing

When I mean by fruit, I ask how far did it spread, how many believers follow it.

>Your European cultural bias is showing
And this is bad because...?

>She sees herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest cannon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

Because your statement was false

youtu.be/tFfNFJOppsM

Pretty sure the only difference between any of those is language.

The difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is purely a semantic distinction, and does not concern the substance of dogma. This is made clear by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which issued an anathema against the criticisms directed against Saint Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas (in chapter 3 of the work, Saint Cyril of Alexandria uses the term "natural union"--"union" here being "henosin", literally " one"--to describe Christ's Nature: "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσιkὴν): let him be anathema."). This means that the mia physis formula was approved. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not uncontroversial, however (since it made the Oriental Orthodox Christology valid), Pope Vigilius refused to attend on the grounds that it conflicted with the Council of Chalcedon, and after it proceeded without him, the Pope refused to accept its conclusions, and excommunicated Patriarch Menas, the Pope protesting that he spoke from Peter's Chair, which was the final authority in all matters; Pope Vigilius was then excommunicated by Patriarch Menas, and imprisoned by Emperor Justinian I, but the Pope eventually recanted and was reinstated.
cont

If you want to understand the distinction between miaphysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox subscribe to) and monophysitism (which both Eastern and Oriental agree is heretical), look as the differences in the prefixes: "mono" means "alone", "solitary", it's used in Luke 4:4 and 4:8. "Mia" is the feminine form of "heis", which just the adjective for "one" ("hen" when used as a noun); see John 17:21 for an example of its use. Not only is this formula acceptable, it is heresy to say it is not, and not just because of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which merely witnessed dogma, it did not create it), but because henosis describes the communion between us and Christ: if we say Christ's humanity does not have henosis with his divinity, then that says his Body and Blood do not have communion with his divinity, and to say such a thing seriously impacts theology of communion, and is ultimately Nestorian. Likewise it is absolutely heretical to suggest that it is invalid to describe Christ as having two natures, insofar as the phrase "two natures" is used strictly and solely to mean that Christ is both fully human and fully divine and that his humanity and divinity are not confused or "mixed", like with a demigod.

Nah, it's not language, it's administrative.

The RCC has something similar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Membership

>I would like to know more about the Orthodox Church. How does it see itself, and justify its authority?
Apostolic succession and unchanging teachings and unchanging understanding of these teachings, without adding or subtracting anything passed down from Christ, which constitutes the whole of dogma.

>What does worship entail, and on what does it focus?
Worship entails using your spirit as well as all five senses to pray to God and praise him and asking him for mercy.

>Historically, how was its identity as a unique religious body formed?
Basically by Jewish persecution. It formed an irreversible independent identity after the Bar Kokhba persecutions especially.

> What does it value in its identity
Sharing one body with Christ.

>and in what forms does it express this?
Many, but the primary one is Holy Communion.

>What does it look like as a minority religion as compared to areas in which it is a majority?
Similar, but non-Orthodox are much less familiar with it.

>Thanks. I would like to know more about the Orthodox Church and how it functions as a religious body. I'm open to book reccomendations on the subject.
Try Saint Ignatius of Antioch.

youtu.be/36GYBTzJyAU
youtu.be/b9orjxKYtfo
youtu.be/NpQSLGQ4pnw
youtu.be/2uUhMIVHSNQ

Great site for comparing Syriac biblical scripture with other versions of the Bible.
dukhrana.com/peshitta/

do you keep these things ready to copy/paste or something

Yes, I typed up quite a bit here :pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

I see the same topics and questions come up over and over, so I eventually just composed detailed answers to everything that could be readily used.

youtu.be/Nm5pIrmw358

Main church websites

thealpha.info/
copticchurch.net/
sor.cua.edu/Intro/
ethiopianorthodox.org/english/indexenglish.html
armenianchurch-ed.net/
eotc.faithweb.com/

There are many Orthadox Christian cults, I'll just label them all eastern christianity.
As a general rule of thumb, western christianity is about church over state, eastern is about state over church.
The fact that the state rules over church in all christian countries should help you decide which idea proved more practical.
Eastern christianity doesn't hoard treasure though, and eastern countries are poorer, so the eastern christianity looks less flashy and attractive, people assuming its less successful.
I don't know if its growing in number of worshipers, but even if it isn't it is surely declining much slower than western christianity.
Also it is more tolerant of old pagan beliefs of the places where its practiced, so you see christians doing things like jumping over fire, killing an animal as sacrifice on this or that date, wearing trinkets and medallions and colorful threads on their wrists, and most will tell you they consider this a christian tradition.

Basically its practical out-of-court christianity for what was a non-organized, wild wild eastern Europe and North Africa/Near East. Christianity for "non civilized" people.

They also preserve many ancient customs taken straight out of old Judaic tradition.
In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church they still separate the sexes during service, women wear head coverings, couples who have recently engaged in sexual intercourse and menstruating women are directed to not come into the Church, practice circumcision, pointing at the Church building is not permitted, have a prohibition on pork and laws similar to Kashrut on how an animal is slaughtered, make amulets similar to the Jewish tefillin.
Some churches have an absence of chairs or benches and people stand or sit on the floor.
They also have a manner different to the typical western form of prayer in which people stick their hands together and kneel down to pray and instead pray with the both palms facing up while standing.

youtu.be/DaEOsRX9IzQ

top kek

>This article is about Eastern churches in full communion with the Catholic Church.
>The Eastern Catholic Churches, historically called the Uniate Churches, are 23 particular churches sui iuris in full communion with the pope of Rome, which make up the Catholic Church together with the Latin Church.
Nothing similar pal.

How is it false?