All of which is refuted as specious argumentation, which in actuality is only based upon Roman redefinition, which your attempt to try to defend increasingly makes manifest.
"πρεσβυτερος" in the Timothys and Titus means catholic priest.
What nonsense is this? Where do you see "ιερευς"(hiereus) instead of πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros=senior)? Where do you see the latter only being used priests, or "ιερευς" for anything but priests? Why can't you just admit that your whole argument, per usual, rests upon the premise that Rome can define things as she wants, so that presbuteros=senior means they were RC priests though they are not titled hiereus?
"ιερευς" is, depending on context, Hebrew priest or Catholic priesthood in its derivation from Melchizedek...,
Rather, in the Scriptures, without RC interpolation, it only is used to refer to OT (or pagan) priests, or as archiereus (high priest), which Christ fulfilled and as such is an office He uniquely holds as high priest. Again, NOWHERE is "ιερευς" (hiereus) used to refer to the clergy of the NT church, except as part of the priesthood of all believers. And in this solitary and inclusive use of hiereus in regards to the church is contrary to presbuteros being a separate class of priests.
"επισκοπος" is, if course bishop, that is a priest who is also overseer of other priests....
More Romish reading into the text. They are simply not titled hiereus, and to make that their formal title as a distinctive class in order to conform to Rome's theology is presuming to do what the Holy Spirit did not see fit to do.
in James 5:15...Acts 20:17... 1 Timothy 4:14.. in Titus 1:5..1 Timothey 5:19..3 John 1:1
James 5:14,15 says presbuteros, not hiereus, and corresponds to Lv. 4:15 (elders=ancients) and which is not restricted to pastors (Mk. 16:18; 1Cor. 12:9) as Acts 9:10-12,17; 13:1-3 illustrates (and confessing faults is "to one another"), but can denote mature believers.
In any case exercising some of the same functions as priests does not make them a separate class formally and uniquely entitled "priests" (and which applies to the rest of your attempted proof texts, in which none are called priests) which the Holy Spirit did not see fit to call them, as there is a covenantal difference as these do not uniquely engage in offering expiatory sacrifices for sin, despite Rome's presumption that she knows better and act like the likewise presumptuous elders of Israel.
Acts 20:17: Here again the pastors are called presbuteros, not hiereus, which he also calls bishops=overseers (v. 28).
In 1 Timothy 4:14 and Titus 1:5 once again the Holy Spirit calls the pastors presbuteros, not hiereus, and having a unique shared function of ordination does not overcome the distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros which the Holy Spirit made in what He referred to them by, as again the latter do not engage in uniquely making sacrifices for sin which the OT priesthood did in prefiguring Christ who fulfilled it. But which type of priests Rome turns presbuteros into do in formally entitling them "priests" as a distinct class, and thus does what the Holy Spirit fails to ever do.
3 John 1:1: "the elder [presbuteros] unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth." Which again establishes nothing as them being a unique sacerdotal class called priests, except by Rome's extrapolative eisegesis.
1 Timothy 5:19: Wrong again; this is not a special legal privilege, as it is OT law (Dt. 17:6), and is affirmed in the NT (Mt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1) and applies to all. Presbuteros are specified here as treatment and discipline of them is the context, and leaders are more accountable.
There are usages in the New Testament where it is impossible to conclude from context that the person was specifically a priest. The best case would be the female form "πρεσβυτερας ως μητερας" (1 Timothy 5:2), but it could simply mean a priest's wife.
"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."
You are repeating refuted arguments, and as said, that is simply desperate and reflects the elitist view of Roman priests. It is written in general terms and there simply is no warrant that would justify the women here being restricted to being a priest's wife (before Rome decided most all the clergy would have the gift of celibacy) any more than the sisters mentioned would only be a priest's daughters.
You need to understand that the language of the Church was just forming just as the priesthood was in the process of forming, and the word ordinarily meaning "elder" came to denote "priest"
Finally your real argument appears, which really means that Roman diversions from the NT church in which pastors are not called priests, in distinction from their Jewish clergy which uniquely engaged in offering up expiatory sacrifices for sin, which Christ fulfilled. And while Love "covers' a multitude of sins all can do that, but it is love of herself that drives Rome's doctrine
And having a better priesthood, He "needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. " (Hebrews 7:27-28)
Also useful reading from people with greater tolerance to Protestant obfuscation of scripture than I can muster:
Rather, "Also useful reading from people with no greater ability at Roman obfuscation of scripture than I can muster," as it argues the same errors in asserting "the English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros," when they are different in meaning, and the former is never distinctively used for the latter.
And the misleading "derived" is not on linguistic terms, but on functional equivalence based upon Rome making presbuteros into priests uniquely offering expiatory sacrifices for sin, thus justifying formally entitling NT clergy "priests," which again, the Holy Spirit never does, in distinction them from the Jewish priesthood. Such is the arrogance of Rome which you supreme example. .Bye
Why then repeat it to Timothy? Because of the presence of men like Diotrephes and others (Third John vs. 9) who bad mouthed even the apostles, (2 Cor. 10:10-12).
It does set them apart in function, because the functions are priestly: annointing, for example (James 5:14) has no other significance but as a sacrament; πρεσβυτεροι are shown to be sacramentally ordained, therefore also separate formally (Titus 1:5) and through the ordainment receiving a particular grace (1 Timothy 4:14), and have privileges (1 Timothy 5:19), whether similar to OT elders or not. I am adressing the only substantive point in your recent post that I could see.
when they are different in meaning
Here you need to widen your horizon beyond English. Of course, English "priest" can also mean a voodoo shaman, or a Hebrew "ιερευς", but specifically "πρεσβυτερος" in the Titus and the Timothys has been shown to refer to functionally distinct nascent from of church service and so has taken on the new meaning of Catholic (or generally Christian) priest. The etymology of "priest" is clearly "πρεσβυτερος", but in English "priest" has more meanings than "πρεσβυτερος" has in Greek. And, I hasten to add, the New Testament "πρεσβυτερος" has meanings other than "priest" outside of the Titus and the Timothys, and that other meaning should be translated as "elder" or something similar, -- no one has argued otherwise.
It is usually a good idea to understand the linguistic argument before wading into it. Especially, understand that unless you are translating between two closely related languages, e.g. from Italian to Spanish, you will not have a 1-1 correspondence of most words, and 1-1 correspondence between "priest" and "πρεσβυτερος" has not been alleged. It only is such in Titus and Timothys, where the topic of apostolic succession is covered by St. Paul, and new use of the word "πρεσβυτερος" is introduced.