I don't think that the title of this forum is accurate. It states Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek) and Coptic (Assyrian, Ethiopian) Christianity.
The Eastern Orthodox section is inadequate, since there are also Antiochian Orthodox (Arabs from the Syria, Lebanon, Israel region).
This however is minor compared to the error under the Coptic heading. Copts are a ethnic group who make up the second largest group of Council of Chalcedon (451) dissenters, the Ethiopians actually make up the largest ethnic group of such dissenters. The Assyrians are actually the opposite, being followers of Nestorius, and dissenters from the Council of Ephesus (431). The non-Chalcedonians would generally anathematize the Assyrians as being Nestorian heretics.
A better heading, if it is desired that all of these groups be included in one forum (and I do believe it to be a good idea, since it is not practical to make more than one forum), would be Eastern Christian Traditions, as this would accurately encompass all of the above.
Another note, there are two other groups that should be mentioned, the Syrian "Jacobites" and the Armenians. Both of these groups are non-Chalcedonian as well.
And finally, concerning the non-Chalcedonians, I currently believe, but am open to correction, that the common title for them, Monophysites, or "single nature", is a misnomer, and that the disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of terminology, namely, the Chalcedonians use physis (greek for nature) interchangeably with ousia (essence or substance), while the non-Chalcedonians understood it to be synonomous with hypostasis (being), thus for a Chalcedonian to say that Christ has two physis or natures, is to say that he is homoosius with the Father and with us. But for the non-Chalcedonians, to say that Christ has two physis is on par with saying that there was no real union between God and man in Christ, but instead two beings operating in cooperation, thus destroying the bridge between man and God that was Christ.
It is also questionable by some as to whether Nestorius was actually guilty of the heresy named after him, although I am less inclined to agree with this as I am to grant confusion to the non-Chalcedonian debate.
The Eastern Orthodox section is inadequate, since there are also Antiochian Orthodox (Arabs from the Syria, Lebanon, Israel region).
This however is minor compared to the error under the Coptic heading. Copts are a ethnic group who make up the second largest group of Council of Chalcedon (451) dissenters, the Ethiopians actually make up the largest ethnic group of such dissenters. The Assyrians are actually the opposite, being followers of Nestorius, and dissenters from the Council of Ephesus (431). The non-Chalcedonians would generally anathematize the Assyrians as being Nestorian heretics.
A better heading, if it is desired that all of these groups be included in one forum (and I do believe it to be a good idea, since it is not practical to make more than one forum), would be Eastern Christian Traditions, as this would accurately encompass all of the above.
Another note, there are two other groups that should be mentioned, the Syrian "Jacobites" and the Armenians. Both of these groups are non-Chalcedonian as well.
And finally, concerning the non-Chalcedonians, I currently believe, but am open to correction, that the common title for them, Monophysites, or "single nature", is a misnomer, and that the disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of terminology, namely, the Chalcedonians use physis (greek for nature) interchangeably with ousia (essence or substance), while the non-Chalcedonians understood it to be synonomous with hypostasis (being), thus for a Chalcedonian to say that Christ has two physis or natures, is to say that he is homoosius with the Father and with us. But for the non-Chalcedonians, to say that Christ has two physis is on par with saying that there was no real union between God and man in Christ, but instead two beings operating in cooperation, thus destroying the bridge between man and God that was Christ.
It is also questionable by some as to whether Nestorius was actually guilty of the heresy named after him, although I am less inclined to agree with this as I am to grant confusion to the non-Chalcedonian debate.
