Jerusalem Patriarchate

Found this interesting group while researching the executive board of Spetrum | Time Warner.

One of the board members father is a member of this church and of Middle Eastern origin. I found this church to be very interesting and I wonder if anyone else has read about it or done any research?

Church Website

Apparently the earliest bishop (leader) of the church was James, brother of god (Jesus). The current bishop(leader) is Theophilos III.

In 1996, he was one of the first Christian clergymen in centuries to make an opening into the closed Wahhabi Islamic society of Qatar, an area historically[citation needed] under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem where many Palestinian Arab migrant workers live today, a considerable number of them Orthodox Christians. He subsequently served as Exarch of the Holy Sepulchre in Qatar.

Apparently there is a strong sect of Christians who closely identify with this group in Palestine or of Palestinian origin.

These bishops have been with almost all of the major leaders in modern history and have a strong presence apparently, quietly in the media among other things.

Feel free to add what you can to this discussion as I try to learn more.

a reply to: toysforadults

Very interesting. I've never heard of the Church. Will do a little research and see what I can find.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

www.atlantaserbs.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.sepulchre.custodia.org...

They are very closely connected to the Holy Sepulchre. A brotherhood dedicated to protecting the Holy Places.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Interestingly enough the church on their website under the history section claim that the church was start in 33AD (yes 33 we all know) by James brother of god(Jesus).

I wonder... is this a written or oral historical record??

What kind of records have they been keeping???

a reply to: toysforadults

the Greek Orthedox church

As Chester said
Its just a standard Greek Orthodox church, nothing very different here at all???

a reply to: toysforadults
Religious Titles—Right for Christians? | What the Bible Says

Should Christians Use Religious Titles?

MUCH is said about a shortage of clergymen in Christendom today, but there is hardly a shortage of religious titles among them. Some titles are simple; others are pretentious. Here are a few examples:

Clergyman: “Reverend.”
Anglican bishop: “Right Reverend the Lord Bishop.”
Roman Catholic bishop (in Italy): “His Excellency, the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Monsignor.”
Cardinal: “His Eminence.”
The pope: “Most Holy Father.”

The titles “reverend” and “bishop” have been in use for such a long time that they do not grate on the ear of most church members. But are such titles authorized by the Bible?

“Reverend,” “Bishop,” and “Cardinal”

In the King James Version, the term “reverend” appears only once, at Psalm 111:9, which says: “Holy and reverend is his name.” Whose name? The next verse says: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm 111:10) In one Catholic version, these two passages read: “Holy and awesome his name. The root of wisdom is the fear of Yahweh [Jehovah].” (The New Jerusalem Bible) Hence, according to God’s Word, godly fear, or reverence, belongs exclusively to Jehovah, the Almighty. Is it correct then to give it to humans?

“If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work,” wrote Paul to Timothy. (1 Timothy 3:1, KJ) However, according to The New Jerusalem Bible, the verse reads: “To want to be a presiding elder is to desire a noble task.” Early Christians with responsible duties were referred to as “elders” and “overseers.” Were those terms used as titles? No. Such men were never called “Bishop Peter” or “Elder James.” ...
...

Obviously, for marketing purposes some people may be inclined to claim their church's earliest Bishop was James, brother of Jesus. Without ever sharing the information above or reminding people of it. Here's some more those who like to be called Bishops don't want people to be reminded of:

Church and State in Byzantium

In a society where religion traditionally played a great role, the Byzantine Church, with its center in Byzantium, wielded considerable power. Church historian Panayotis Christou once observed: “The Byzantines saw their earthly empire an image of the Kingdom of God.” The imperial authority did not always share that view, however. As a result, the relationship between Church and State was stormy at times. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states: “The bishops of Constantinople [or Byzantium] displayed a wide range of behavior, including cowardly subservience to a powerful ruler . . . , fruitful collaboration with the throne . . . , and bold opposition to the imperial will.”

The patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Eastern Church, became a very influential figure. It was he who crowned the emperor, therefore expecting him to be a staunch defender of Orthodoxy. The patriarch was also very rich, since he controlled the vast resources of the church. His power derived as much from his authority over the innumerable monks as from his influence on the laity.

The patriarch was often in a position to defy the emperor. He could threaten excommunication—imposing his will in the name of God—or resort to other methods by which emperors could be broken.

With the gradual decline of civil administration outside the capital, bishops often became the most powerful men in their cities, on a par with provincial governors, whom they helped to select. Bishops gave attention to court cases and secular business whenever the church was involved—and sometimes when it was not. A contributing factor was that priests and monks, all subject to their local bishops, numbered in the tens of thousands.

Politics and Simony

As the above shows, the pastoral office became inextricably intertwined with politics. Moreover, the great number of clerics and their religious activities of necessity involved large sums of money. Most high-ranking clergymen lived luxuriously. As the church gained power and wealth, apostolic poverty and sanctity disappeared. Some priests and bishops paid for their appointment. Simony was common all the way to the highest ranks of the hierarchy. Clerics supported by wealthy lobbies vied for ecclesiastical offices before the emperor.

Bribes were also a means to influence senior religious leaders...

a reply to: whereislogic

You do mean in your signature section mean, do not fall for the propaganda of AWAKE 2000 or any of the JW's nonsense. Your authority comes form AWAKE Magazine and so called teachers of the Watchtower Society, mine comes from the Preserved word of God.

a reply to: whereislogic

Obviously, for marketing purposes some people may be inclined to claim their church's earliest Bishop was James, brother of Jesus. Without ever sharing the information above or reminding people of it. Here's some more those who like to be called Bishops don't want people to be reminded of:

The synagogue of James was not a church. It was a Nazarene synagogue with total Hebrew liturgy with no Greek influence whatsoever. James the Just, brother of Jesus, was called a president and the inference has been made that he stood as the Nazarene Nasi of that movement. As a Nasi [high priest] he was allowed to represent his people in the Jerusalem temple once every year the same as the rabbinic movement.

This is not to say that the Greeks did not also have their own synagogues because they most certainly did but they were not welcome into the Hebrew movement with any Hellenistic influence whatsoever. Regardless of either Hebrew /Aramaic or Greek it was James who was the Nasi of both. The purpose was that the Hellenist were expected to eventually re learn Hebrew/Aramaic and eventually all become reinstated into their roots.

Clement of Rome was the disciple of Apostle John and is claimed to be the second Bishop of the Roman organizations which were called churches. Rome claims apostle Peter as the first Bishop and Clement the second bishop of their movement. But that was put into their Roman organizations long after they sacked Jerusalem and murdered the Nazarene movement. Bishops were not a part of the first Christian movement.

You should see how many fights these guys get into with each other.
Different bishops monks and priest I mean. You can't arrest them just break up the fights.

a reply to: toysforadults
If this is the historical "patriarchate of Jerusalem", then it is a branch of the Orthodox church.
The Nicene Council established the overall leadership of the church in three places- Antioch (which must have been the original centre), Rome, and Alexandria. In those days the bishops of Jerusalem (who already claimed descent from James) were under the authority of Antioch.
Another Council in 531 A.D. acknowledged the bishops of both Constantinople and Jerusalem as Patriarchs, on a level with the original three. So for about 500 years the Church was under the leadership of five Patriarchs, whose status was really controlled by the political importance of their respective cities.
When Rome and the West broke away from the rest, the other four Patriarchates, including Jerusalem, were left behind as the Orthodox church.
The Crusaders who occupied Jerusalem complicated things by creating a "Latin" Patriarchate of Jerusalem under the authority of Rome, but that would have passed away with the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem.
I am expecting you to find that this church has the same teachings as the other Orthodox churches (unless this is a rival body started by a heretical group).