The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[LoveofTruth]

Many of them actually walked with God.

Today in this day and age, we have the word of God through scriptures and the Holy Spirit opens up one's mind to these scriptures.

Romans 10:14 "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

It was through the prophets disciples/apostles that spread the Word (old and new) that we build our foundation on.

Romans 10:15 "And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

Romans 10:16 "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, "Lord, who hath believed our report?"

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

Romans 10:18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, "their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."


I will say this in agreeance with you that I believe God works in the hearts of men, especially his chosen vessels. But to me, God and his Word are the same. And that doesn't take away from Romans 10:17.

Or these as others have posted -

II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the world of truth."

II Timothy 3:15 "And that from a child thou hast know the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

And you yourself are using scripture and it's by the scriptures that we are to search out what is true or not true according to what we are taught/hear, etc.

If you didn't have the scriptures you wouldn't even have anything to base your argument on. But again I do also agree that the Holy Spirit does work in the hearts of men but in this day and age that usually comes from at least first hearing the Word of God. That's how we know him, his plan, build our faith and so on.

The gospel was preached before unto Abraham without scripture yet given

 

[LoveofTruth]

To all:

Also consider how God has spoken and saved this from the beginning of creation who are weak and young children and those cannot hear or read or see or have no scripture or retarded or have brain damage or are simply born in a place where no scriptures are ever read or preachers ever come.

To all these must the rule of God reach and the true Light still and always has lighteth every man that come through into the world. God has not left himself without witness. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to the gospel.

If God makes the sun shine on the just and unjust has He not given grace to all for grace?

 

[The Liturgist]

To all:

Also consider how God has spoken and saved this from the beginning of creation who are weak and young children and those cannot hear or read or see or have no scripture or retarded or have brain damage or are simply born in a place where no scriptures are ever read or preachers ever come.

To all these must the rule of God reach and the true Light still and always has lighteth every man that come through into the world. God has not left himself without witness. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to the gospel.

If Gid makes the sun shine on the just and unjust has He not given grace to all for grace?

This is a good point.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Petros- G4074- apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786.

And

1 Corinthians 10: 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Psalm 94: 22. But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.”

You completely missed the Aramaic - KEPHA. THAT was the exact precise, no holds bar NAME Jesus Himself gave to Simon of Jonah.
Simon you are My Boulder.....

Translated to Petros into the universal Greek language of the time.
So if you do not have the correct word and it is a FEMININE noun and one MUST change it, it is THEN up the Bishop of the said Church to define the knowledge of the term.

For the Church, dear Timothy, is the bulwark of truth and have any go to them....
And as Peter said - do not 'define or explain' [wrest] scriptures or Pauls epistles for yourselves because well... you damn yourself.

^^^ Damn yourself for your own exegesis?
Wow, harsh?
It is what it is.

 

[The Liturgist]

Petros- G4074- apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786.

And

1 Corinthians 10: 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Psalm 94: 22. But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.”

As @WarriorAngel pointed out this is an inaccurate exegesis.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You completely missed the Aramaic - KEPHA. THAT was the exact precise, no holds bar NAME Jesus Himself gave to Simon of Jonah.
Simon you are My Boulder.....

Translated to Petros into the universal Greek language of the time.
So if you do not have the correct word and it is a FEMININE noun and one MUST change it, it is THEN up the Bishop of the said Church to define the knowledge of the term.

For the Church, dear Timothy, is the bulwark of truth and have any go to them....
And as Peter said - do not 'define or explain' [wrest] scriptures or Pauls epistles for yourselves because well... you damn yourself.

^^^ Damn yourself for your own exegesis?
Wow, harsh?
It is what it is.

I trust the writers of the scripture as they gave us in Greek not your ideas. The word is what it is in Greek.

And Peter never would set himself up as a lord over the flock or some exalted man. He considered himself one of the elders

1 Peter 5: 1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

As blessed as Peter was he was not some supreme head over all. We even read

Galatians 2: 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

I’m fact, Paul (not Peter) said he had care of all the churches but Paul never set himself up as a man having dominion or control over all or a lord over them.

2 Corinthians 11: 28. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.”

Paul primarily went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews and he cares not for man’s persons and says,

Galatians 2: 6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles )”

Be careful not to wrest scripture as Peter warns.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I trust the writers of the scripture as they gave us in Greek not your ideas. The word is what it is in Greek.

And Peter never would set himself up as a lord over the flock or some exalted man. He considered himself one of the elders

1 Peter 5: 1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

As blessed as Peter was he was not some supreme head over all. We even read

Galatians 2: 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

I’m fact, Paul (not Peter) said he had care of all the churches but Paul never set himself up as a man having dominion or control over all or a lord over them.

2 Corinthians 11: 28. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.”

Paul primarily went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews and he cares not for man’s persons and says,

Galatians 2: 6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles )”

Be careful not to wrest scripture as Peter warns.

In scriptures sometimes the Aramaic Kepha is left Kepha. {Kefas in semetic which means Jewish]


GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται

Which means BOULDER...

 

[LoveofTruth]

In scriptures sometimes the Aramaic Kepha is left Kepha. {Kefas in semetic which means Jewish]


GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται

Which means BOULDER...

Not in the case with Peter and Jesus . The Greek word is right and the writers used those specific words. and God is the Rock Christ is the Rock as we read all over scripture. Jesus asked Peter who do men say that I am? That question was answered by Peter by revelation of the Father and no man comes to Jesus unless the Father reveals reveals things and if they have heard and been taught by the Father. The inward heart must first be changed then outward confession .

 

[WarriorAngel]

Not in the case with Peter and Jesus . The Greek word is right abd the writers used those specific words. and God is the Rock Christ is the Rock as we read all over scripture. Jesus asked Peter who do men say that I am? That question was answered by Peter by revelation of the Father abd no ma n comes to Jesus unless the Father reveals reveals things and if they have heard and been taught by the Father. The inward heart must first be changed then outward confession .

Yes in the case of Peter. St Jerome's translation into Latin then into English.
Cephas was interpreted to PETER as St John stated, Because Greek was universal as English is universal today.

NOT to make Cephas become insignificant and smaller but to be a UNIVERSAL language.
For Katholic [in scriptures in Greek] is the whole world.

Revision cannot or should not exist, but it does now.

Pay attention to 7 and 8.
Why was it important that Cephas be a role model for gentiles [of which HE claimed the gentiles heard from his mouth in the council of the Acts] as HE sent out Paul to do so??

IE Paul was his representative to the gentiles and as such, Paul told him off, which was SO IMPORTANT for the gentiles because he was Cephas, the BOULDER Jesus built upon.

1	"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. [John 1:42]
2	"Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:12]
3	"For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; [1 Corinthians 3:22]
4	"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? [1 Corinthians 9:5]
5	"And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. [1 Corinthians 15:5]
6	"And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [Galatians 2:9]
7	"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [Galatians 2:11]
8	"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [Galatians 2:14]

 

[WarriorAngel]

Addendum:

Cephas was the actual name and on occasion Paul would use his name as boulder but on other occasions in Greek he was Petros.

Noting: the importance of Cephas in moments it was dire.

 

[jas3]

Just getting caught up on this thread, I was pretty shocked by this claim:

Ignatius of Antioch and his writings can be questioned about the authenticity of such letters and the content also, they are not scripture,

Ignatius of Antioch in an attempt to resist other doctrine and men coming into the church set himself up as the sole "Bishop" over all.

What on earth is your source for that??? Bishops are in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Tim. 3), although the word is sometimes translated as "overseer" by Protestants who don't want to admit the existence of the episcopate. Clement of Rome wrote about bishops before Ignatius did, and Ignatius himself wrote to Polycarp - another bishop. I really am curious where such a bizarre claim came from.

Even other men from the past like TTertullian said of the supper,

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was first an actual body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure,” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40).

You have misread Tertullian. Nobody has ever denied that there is symbolic significance in the Eucharist. But acknowledging something as symbolic doesn't negate the literal reality. His point here is only that Christ had a physical body, which Marcion denied. Tertullian also referred to the Eucharist as simply the body and blood of Christ in several other works, for example:

The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. - Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8

 

[LoveofTruth]

Just getting caught up on this thread, I was pretty shocked by this claim:

The truth can be shocking to some at times

What on earth is your source for that??? Bishops are in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Tim. 3)

Bishops are (overseers) who watch over not lord over or control or have dominion over the body. They are the plural male elders in a gathering, more mature brothers who care for the others but this does not negate the body ministry of the whole church where every person can wait on the Lord and use thier gifts and minister as God leads and have a doctrine a revelation a prophecy or tongue and interpretation and all can function as Christ works in them all effectually.

As scripture shows this order of God clearly.

1 Corinthians 14:26-37, 1 Peter 4:10,11, Ephesians 4:10-16, Roman’s 12:3-8, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, Colossians 3:16, etc etc

There is always preferably a plurality of ekder/overseers in every church

As scripture shows, and never do we see one man over all called the pastor or Bishop.

Acts 14: 23. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” (Plural elders)

James 5: 14. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:” (plural elders)

, although the word is sometimes translated as "overseer" by Protestants who don't want to admit the existence of the episcopate.

No, the Greek word is “overseer”. Showing that a Bishop is an overseer, the elder is who he is, an older mature believer, the bishop/ overseer is the function of watching over, apostle , prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher is possible gifts they may have. But they must all be apt to teach.

As scripture shows again.

Acts 20: 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Spoken to the elders plural.

Clement of Rome wrote about bishops before Ignatius did,

I have no problem with bishops/overseers/ elders

and Ignatius himself wrote to Polycarp - another bishop. I really am curious where such a bizarre claim came from.

It’s all over the place I believe as I have read it in many places. A sample here,

SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons - Sermon Index

Founded in 2002. The mission of SermonIndex is the preservation and propagation of classical Biblical preaching and the promotion of Christ-centered revival to this generation.

www.sermonindex.net

You have misread Tertullian. Nobody has ever denied that there is symbolic significance in the Eucharist. But acknowledging something as symbolic doesn't negate the literal reality. His point here is only that Christ had a physical body, which Marcion denied. Tertullian also referred to the Eucharist as simply the body and blood of Christ in several other works, for example:

I follow scripture in the spirit and do not put men above what is written. Christ dwells in our heart by faith we don’t literally eat him to have faith.

John 6: 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

 

[jas3]

As scripture shows, and never do we see one man over all called the pastor or Bishop.

And my point was that Ignatius never claimed to be the sole bishop.

No, the Greek word is “overseer”.

The Greek word is ἐπίσκοπος.

It’s all o et the place I believe as I have read it in many places. A sample here,

Well, at least you're not alone in your misunderstanding. But it shows serious ignorance of early Christian writings to think that Ignatius was the only one talking about the authority of bishops, or, more directly to your claim, the multiplicity of bishops.

Ignatius was saying that there is one bishop in a locality - early on, this would be a city. And his letters were written to churches in other cities, so Ignatius wasn't even claiming to be the bishop of the people he was writing to.

I follow scripture in the spirit and do not put men above what is written. Christ dwells in our heart by faith we don’t literally eat him to have faith.

And I dont think I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but I hope you see that the early Christian writers didn't believe that.

 

[LoveofTruth]

And my point was that Ignatius never claimed to be the sole bishop.

The Greek word is ἐπίσκοπος.

Well, at least you're not alone in your misunderstanding. But it shows serious ignorance of early Christian writings to think that Ignatius was the only one talking about the authority of bishops, or, more directly to your claim, the multiplicity of bishops.

Ignatius was saying that there is one bishop in a locality - early on, this would be a city. And his letters were written to churches in other cities, so Ignatius wasn't even claiming to be the bishop of the people he was writing to.

And I dont think I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but I hope you see that the early Christian writers didn't believe that.

The writers of scripture believed as I do and Jesus also did not say to eat his literal flesh as I showed you already,

John 6: 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

And my point was that Ignatius never claimed to be the sole bishop.

The Greek word is ἐπίσκοπος.

Well, at least you're not alone in your misunderstanding. But it shows serious ignorance of early Christian writings to think that Ignatius was the only one talking about the authority of bishops, or, more directly to your claim, the multiplicity of bishops.

Ignatius was saying that there is one bishop in a locality - early on, this would be a city. And his letters were written to churches in other cities, so Ignatius wasn't even claiming to be the bishop of the people he was writing to.

And I dont think I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but I hope you see that the early Christian writers didn't believe that.

You can only convince me of anything if it is in the Spirit of God’s revelation and according to scripture given by the Spirit.

 

[LoveofTruth]

And my point was that Ignatius never claimed to be the sole bishop.

The Greek word is ἐπίσκοπος.

Well, at least you're not alone in your misunderstanding. But it shows serious ignorance of early Christian writings to think that Ignatius was the only one talking about the authority of bishops, or, more directly to your claim, the multiplicity of bishops.

Ignatius was saying that there is one bishop in a locality - early on, this would be a city. And his letters were written to churches in other cities, so Ignatius wasn't even claiming to be the bishop of the people he was writing to.

And I dont think I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but I hope you see that the early Christian writers didn't believe that.

And the Greek word for “bishop” means,

from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):--bishop, overseer

 

[LoveofTruth]

Well, at least you're not alone in your misunderstanding. But it shows serious ignorance of early Christian writings to think that Ignatius was the only one talking about the authority of bishops, or, more directly to your claim, the multiplicity of bishops.

I don’t think Ignatius was the only one who did this. We see certain things happening even in scripture with certain men.

I am not misunderstanding this . I put scripture over any errors of the so called “church fathers”. Jesus said call no man master or father for a reason.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Yes in the case of Peter. St Jerome's translation into Latin then into English.
Cephas was interpreted to PETER as St John stated, Because Greek was universal as English is universal today.

NOT to make Cephas become insignificant and smaller but to be a UNIVERSAL language.
For Katholic [in scriptures in Greek] is the whole world.

Revision cannot or should not exist, but it does now.

Pay attention to 7 and 8.
Why was it important that Cephas be a role model for gentiles [of which HE claimed the gentiles heard from his mouth in the council of the Acts] as HE sent out Paul to do so??

IE Paul was his representative to the gentiles and as such, Paul told him off, which was SO IMPORTANT for the gentiles because he was Cephas, the BOULDER Jesus built upon.

1	"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. [John 1:42]
2	"Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:12]
3	"For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; [1 Corinthians 3:22]
4	"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? [1 Corinthians 9:5]
5	"And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. [1 Corinthians 15:5]
6	"And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [Galatians 2:9]
7	"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [Galatians 2:11]
8	"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [Galatians 2:14]

Galatians 2: 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”(King James Version)

The word is Peter there Petros not Cephas .in Galatians vs 11 and 14, As in all the quotes you gave

And consider

John 1: 42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”

“Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic.

That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:

John 1:42 (KJV) 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon "Cephas." John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that "Cephas" meant "a stone."

 

[jas3]

The writers of scripture believed as I do and Jesus also did not say to eat his literal flesh as I showed you already,

Then who is the earliest post-apostolic writer you can point to who interpreted John 6 the way you do?

You can only convince me of anything if it is in the Spirit of God’s revelation and according to scripture given by the Spirit.

That doesn't seem like a very consistent standard. You accept all kinds of things about the faith that aren't divinely revealed or in Scripture, like which books of the Bible are canonical and that a council of the world's bishops can meet to define the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father or of the Spirit with the Son and the Father. If you're reading a two thousand year old Greek text and all the people within several centuries of the text's composition interpreted it one way, why would you not consider their interpretation as evidence in determining the correct interpretation?

And the Greek word for “bishop” means,

from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):--bishop, overseer

Yes, that's from a Protestant source, Strong's Concordance. And as I said, some Protestants will try to translate the word as anything other than "bishop" to avoid acknowledging the existence of the episcopate in the Bible. Strong's is a decent reference but you have to be aware of its biases. It also tries to say that the proper name "Petros" doesn't mean the same thing as the word it comes from, "petra," to diminish Peter's role.

I don’t think Ignatius was the only one who did this. We see certain things happening even in scripture with certain men.

This is a very ambiguous statement. Are you saying that you still think Ignatius tried to set himself up as the sole bishop over "everyone"?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Then who is the earliest post-apostolic writer you can point to who interpreted John 6 the way you do?

I simply need Jesus words when he said

John 6: 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

Peter said about this new birth inwardly

1 Peter 1: 23. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

We read of eating the word and believing in what Jesus did on the cross and his resurrection . The gospel is defined by Paul who did not add the Lords supper or water baptism or the Mosaic law, or circumcision or foot washing etc to the gospel. To do so woul make another gospel,

1 Corinthians 15: 1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

Jeremiah 15: 16. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. 17. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation.”

Also Paul spoke of the bread and said

1 Corinthians 10: 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

And he showed the spiritual aspect of this eating and drinking of all the saints of all time when he said,

1 Corinthians 10: 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat;”

Spiritual meat and spiritual drink of that Rock which was Christ.

James also speaks of the new birth spiritual by the word,

James 1: 18. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

That doesn't seem like a very consistent standard. You accept all kinds of things about the faith that aren't divinely revealed or in Scripture, like which books of the Bible are canonical and that a council of the world's bishops can meet to define the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father or of the Spirit with the Son and the Father. If you're reading a two thousand year old Greek text and all the people within several centuries of the text's composition interpreted it one way, why would you not consider their interpretation as evidence in determining the correct interpretation?

I believe God overshadowed the making of the King James Bible and all the manuscripts to be used and preserved were preserved by God. How could Daniels words be sealed up for the latter times if Gid did not watch over them. Or the book of Revelation if Gid did not preserve it?

Psalm 12: 6. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

I trust in God not men.

Yes, that's from a Protestant source, Strong's Concordance. And as I said, some Protestants will try to translate the word as anything other than "bishop" to avoid acknowledging the existence of the episcopate in the Bible. Strong's is a decent reference

I have no issue with the word bishop/overseer as the Greek word is used in both ways and means the same thing. As scripture shows. But there is a plurality of elders in every church in scripture we don’t see one man a pastor or bishop over all the believers in God’s order in scripture except Christ who is the Lord over all. Even Paul said ,

2 Corinthians 1: 24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

Dominion over means

from 2962; to rule:--have dominion over, lord, be lord of, exercise lordship over.

(2962) from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):-- God, Lord, master, Sir

Eiders watch over, not Lord over, they are helpers not controllers or rulers over them.

Jesus warned of such exalted men over others and said,

Matthew 20: 25. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:”

All would do well to take heed to Jesus words here. This is similar to what happened in history, the exalted men took rule and lorded it over the church as kings or exalted men controlling others with force and earthly power, even killing many saints who did not let them Lord over and their teachings corrupt them.

Paul warned of men exalting themselves over others and said,

2 Corinthians 11: 12. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works… 20. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.”

John warned of these exalted men as well

3 John 1: 9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.”

In the Old Testament the people also wanted a king over them in Saul. God earned them when they wanted this they did not want God to rule over them and that this king would bring them into bondage and affect them in a bad way.

Paul warned of a man rub them of their goods (spoil them) etc.

Colossians 2: 4. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words…8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”