The Ethiopian Orthodox Church

As an agnostic atheist studying religions, this particular denomination of Christianity fascinates me. They are so different from the other denominations. The facts I will list will make this very clear.

Their name to be exact is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. They are in Communion with the Egyptian Coptic Church and are part of a branch of Christianity called the Oriental Orthodoxy which is the same as the Armenian Orthodox Church but different from Eastern Orthodoxy of the Greek and Russian traditions. The reason I believe they are so distinct is because of geographic isolation. Medieval Sub Saharan Africa is a long way away from the Pope in Rome.

They have some very fascinating cultural treasures. Some of their churches are carved out of the face of a giant rock. They are said to hold the Ark of the Covenant and have made replicas of the stone tablets that they bring out for ceremonies but are so holy that they they are covered with cloth so nobody will see them.

They still hold Mosaic dietary laws and you have to remove your shoes when entering a Church. They share many customs with Judaism compared to other Christian denominations.

But this next fact is what REALLY interests me about this Church: their scriptures. They have some of the oldest Bibles in the world closest to the age of the manuscripts which the Bible is translated from and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can thank the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for preserving the Book of Enoch which was unknown in Europe until the 18th century. Their Bible contains all the cannon books, most but not all of the Apocrypha and some additional books not included in Bibles of any other denomination. These books include the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilees and the three books of Meqabyan. They are the ONLY church to include some books from the New Testament Apocrypha.

Not all the additional books from the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible have been translated into English though some have. I read online somewhere that there currently is an effort to get the whole Ethiopian Orthodox Bible translated from Ge'ez (the language and script used for their Bible) to English but it's taking a long time.

I've read the Book of Enoch, but I'm on the hunt for the Book of Jubilees and 1, 2 and 3 Meqabyan.

So with all of that said I have two questions:

The first question is: does this denomination hold communion with all other Orthodox Churches or not? That is recognizing the authority of other Orthodox church leaders, the validity of their baptisms and recognizing that members of say... the Greek Orthodox Church are 'saved'.

The second question is: How do other Christians and atheists view this unique brand of Christianity? If more people in the west knew of this church, I'm sure they will quickly form an opinion of it. Are they held in the same view Catholics and Protestants view each other as heretics and tools of Satan? Or alternatively, do they hold some valuable truths that you can learn? As for the atheists of this forum: do you view this church the same way you see your regular Protestant denomination? That is they have crazy beliefs but are mostly harmless. Or do you see this as a destructive cult? Something like Jehovah's Witnesses but not as destructive as ISIL.

I really want to hear your opinions on this church. Personally, I find them fascinating but not worth my abandoning of critical thinking to join.

 

No, they are not even close to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses are pretenders who only came on the scene within the last couple hundred years, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church really is an ancient Church. I find it hard to believe that they have the actual Ark of the Covenant and have been able to keep it safe, though.

 

Well, there are theories that there were contingency plans to safeguard the Ark against capture, and where it rests now is a matter the Sages have debated for Centuries, currently it is held that the Ark will return when once again, Temple services are restored to Jerusalem, however, given certain modifications that have been made by some, to prevent Temple service, it gives pause.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses have at least one credit, a scholarly work to faithfully translate the Greek sciptures and their Interlinear translation of the Greek scriptures is a good reference work with numerous scholarly citations and reviews.

Their New testament is pretty faithful to the original languages as well.

The other being numerous Court decisions as far as Religious freedom.

 

Their NT has been altered to support their Arian theology. Could be an honest mistake, but I don't think so. I've also read a fair amount of their literature, it's pretty sketchy.

 

Their doctrine is quite another matter, however, they have been faithful to the original translations and even where there are alternate words, they acknowledge it in foot notes.

I have seen variances from Spanish to English in a translation of the Lords Prayer, and the Original Greek translation seems to favor the KJV

In Spanish it says in one version, do not let us fall into temptation,
And in Greek " not you should bring us into temptation",
KJV "lead us not into temptation".

I always prefer the let us not fall into temptation myself, as it fits neatly with the concept that we are not tempted with evil.

James 1:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

 

Which is why it's always a good idea to have more than one translation on hand, along with a Strongs concordance and a Vine's dictionary (if you are of the printed word persuasion.)

 

I agree with you about the Ark of the Covenant. When you state how ancient the church is and your use of the word 'pretender', in your opinion is this church closer or farther away from what 1st-3rd century Christianity was compared to other denominations whatever your beliefs are?

 

I don't think you can compare the Eastern Church with the Western Church, they are separated by history and culture. The Protestant Churches as you know them didn't exist more than 500 years ago. The Roman Catholic Church still retains some of the ancient religion, though, and by that I mean liturgy, and I expect the EOC does, too. Both the RCC and the EOC go back at least to the first century, as far as I know.

 

Atheist agnostic? SO, you do not believe in a god, which is an assertion, but then you also do not know if one exists or not? If you really do not know, as I do not know, being agnostic, how can you not believe in something and at the same time claim that you do not know at all?

I really do think we have the classification of theist, atheist, agnostic, for a reason of definition and clarity, and you are muddling that up with your claim. You must be a modern liberal? They seem afflicted with this affection. And muddy up terms all of the time.

One wonders what they have in regards to their claims, which no one can ever see? The Ark. I heard that the keeper of that dies from cancer as if it is radioactive. Every one of them to date. But one can hear anything. Graham Hancock talks about his visit there years ago to try to find out.

I really have no opinion on this church, for I know little about it.

 

The explanation I heard is that the way the ark is built makes it a capacitor. It builds up a static charge and if you get too close it zaps you. Can't vouch for the veracity of that claim, though.

 

There is a very wide spectrum of belief. Some say they personally think there is a God but will not declare it for an absolute fact. Others personally do not think there is a God but will not state it for an absolute fact. I'm the latter.

You cannot make easy definitions 100% of the time. I don't know if there is a God, but to me it is highly unlikely so I'm just going to live my life assuming there is none. This is a very easy decision to make. And the majority of atheists are like me.

As for those of the former that is agnostic theist, they are strongly inclined to assume there is a God so they either search and search the religions for a good fit (many practice Buddhism) OR they go through the motions of the Abrahamic faith they are born into while being tortured by doubts in their minds. Why are they tortured by doubts? Because religion demands that you believe with 100% certainty. You MUST believe you are saved by Jesus with 100% certainty otherwise you are a false Christian. There is also the option of being what is called a 'free thinker' that is forming your own conclusions of the nature of God and how God works without going through the motions organized religion demands.

A gnostic atheist that is an atheist who knows for a fact that there is no God is extremely rare because very few intelligent people will go around saying they are absolutely certain of life's biggest questions and of things they cannot comprehend. I will tell you right now for example that I will NEVER understand the mysteries of how women think or the extreme pain of childbirth.

A gonstic theist on the other hand is very common due to the human need for certainty and fear of critical thinking combined with indoctrination since childhood.

 

You don't think God has the power to put the Ark where He wants it and to keep it safe?

 

And atheist, who knows, that atheism is a belief.

You combine here philosophy and religion. To believe in god and to doubt in god is not the same as to believe and doubt in philosophy or science. Sure trusts an atheist not in god - how? He believes god is not existing.

What is the problem with a sentence like "I do not believe in something, which I am not able to know" or the sentence "I believe in god, although I am not able to know god" ?

?

Agnosticism is the philosophy, which finds out that theism and atheism are both forms of a spiritual belief and no one never will be able to find out which form of belief is true. Your threeness is not a threeness.

Okay - the rest which you say here is just simple weird, isn't it? But perhaps is interesting the question how "the Ark" was able to save since 2000 years the Christians of Ethiopia - our well respected sisters and brothers in god. I hope the English speaking world will not be the end of their culture.

 

The Ark is actually an Antenna to the Divine source of energy and a discharge of the Ark's energy beam is equal to approximately 5 Terrawatts.

The idea is only the Levites can actually get near it and transport it, as only they possess the oral knowledge and instructions on its use, they carry the Ark into position approaching the enemy, and by aiming it at the enemy, it discharges is a narrow focused beam of intense destructive energy.

The Ark is also able to cause cancer affecting the people keeping it, or if it is captured and not maintained as only the Levites would have this knowledge.

 

An interesting nonsense. But to be able to say nonsense shows only the freedom of thoughts. The reality is the unbelievable high amount of dead cultures on the way of the English ignorant and arrogant aggressions worldwide since hundreds of years. Only Alberix seems to be able to protect his world from the deadly English influence. And this only on reason of not-existence. Poor blue planet.

 

What to say to such sentences?

 

I don't think He cares one way or the other. If anything were to happen to the original one He could conjure up a duplicate out of the dust of the ground.

 

Sorry man, you have not convinced me using logic. And atheist makes the assertion that god does not exist. A theist makes the assertion that god does exist. The agnostic says he does not know, and some will even say they do not think that man can ever know, given what is involved. So there are three logical positions here. The illogical comes in when one says I am an atheist agnostic. So, the first term "knows" while the second term does "not know".

Now if you cannot see the incoherence in coupling those two terms, I cannot help you at all. Except by laying out what is logical and illogical, what is coherent and what is not.

If we cannot agree upon something so basic, then we have problem. Or you have the problem, not me. I think the problem with you and the guy I quoted is that something isn't firing properly in the reasoning process.

So, I can expect someone to say, that he is a theist, atheist agnostic and a few will agree that this is possible, reasonable, logical and rational. But of course not myself.

 

If they were close to 1st Century Christianity they would whack off their foreskins, bar women from speaking in church, and baptize people for the dead.

 

The first two could very well be the case from what I've read about them. As for the third, probably not but I need to do more research to be sure.

 

?

? ... Got it: My translation is: "Sorry Sir, you are an idiot."

assertion="Behauptungssatz" ... - Aha: you try to use here the Aristotelian standard of logic.

An atheist believes this assertion is true.

As simple as this sentence seems to be it is nevertheless a very complex sentence. People who believe in god don't call themselves "theists"; they call themselves for example Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindi and so on and so on - but not "theists". Only atheists call people from this and other religions "theists". The people themselves call themselves sometimes "seekers", "hopers", "lovers" or in most cases just simple "believers" for example. But also this is not trivial: A Jew for example is able to believe in god or not - same with a Christian: not every Christian believes always in god. But an atheist never believes in god. And the only "theist" who is really an equivalent to this idea is an a-atheist. An a-atheist is the only possible theist in this form of atheistic logic. But perhaps a-atheists = theists do not exist at all. Only because someone likes to have enemies means not this enemies are existing. It seems to be essential for the belief of atheists not to share the belief of self-defined "theists".

An agnostic says "I am not able to know whether god exists or not exists". This position is similar for example to problems like "I am no able to know whether I live in the matrix or not" or questions like "Is a thing really recognizable?" which might be a problem for a programer for example.

No. A Christian who says for example "I believe in god" gives an agnostic statement which is always true if he believes in god. This statement is also true if god is not existing.

An atheist who says "I know that god is not existing" is in the eyes of a philosopher, who is an agnostic, only a liar. So most atheists try to say "Theists do not know that god is existing, that's why I am right". The problem is in such contexts often the word "not". Not a needle is for example everything what is not a needle. A Galaxy for example is not a needle - or a klushbrashdroshwi is also not a needle. But what do we really know about a klushbrashdroshwi or about the galaxy where I am on my own a part from? To use the word "not" can be very dangerous.

? ...

Fascinating Borg culture. Very fascinating.

 

I just read illogical gibberish. So I guess we are done?

 

My impression is to speak with a member of an ignorant, arrogant and aggressive "species", which will erase all and everything from this planet what it is not able to understand. So I fear to ask "Do you understand yourself?" while I see only the chance to pray for my sisters and brothers in god, his children from Ethiopia. I hope god is on their side, when they will have to defend themselves against "people like you".

 

For suggesting that I am dong something wrong with muddying up the terms and that there is something wrong with my reasoning process, One Mind has earned an Ignore from me.