Yes, -- in Revelation ιερευς is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ. I did not say that ιερευς was never used in Christian context, -- Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech, -- I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, πρεσβυτερος to more accurately describe the new function.
install priests in the Chistian congregations where none exists.
No Hebrew ιερει exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; πρεσβυτεροι very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.
THIS is what you said earlier:
“Priests of the New Testament are presbyteroi in the original. They are priests because they celebrate sacraments (see for example, James 5:14) and are a distinct people for that reason (1 Timothy 4:14). Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word “priest” is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don’t confuse the two”
“...presbyteroi in the original” for Christian priests, remember? Now it’s:
“Yes, — in Revelation (hiereus) is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ”.
You go on to say:
“Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech....”
Nay not so according Paul’s words to the Hebrews, chapters 9 & 10. He says it was Christ entering into the Most Holy to offer himself as the sacrifice that abolished the need for any repetitious sacrifices by Hebrew priests. He being the High Priest no lower priests were needed or mentioned as having a part.
“....in the order of Melchisedech..”?
At Hebrews 7:17 Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 and applies that oath and promise about Melchizedek to Christ and Christ alone. There is but one member of this High Priesthood and since would be it no priesthood of others was set up or in existence.
John 20:21 uses the word ‘apostello’ to refer to Christ being sent out by his father, not priest, and those he sent were disciples not priests, certainly not like Melchizedek.
You continue:
“I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, (presbyteros) to more accurately describe the new function”
But presbyteros (I have trouble getting the Greek font up) was used to mean elder and older man long before the time of Christ, as far back as during the time of Homer I believe, so the word is not new and it’s meaning well known to Greek speaking persons.
If you mean a novel useage then you should be able to show it was applied to Jewish priests too as hiereus was to describe their priestly functions. You cannot.
Lastly you come up with this absolute gem!
“No Hebrew (hierei) exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; (presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”
Of course not! Hebrew priests never officiated in the Christian church.
“......(presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”
Not unless Paul wrote in English as translating presbyteroi, prebyteros, etc. as priest or priestly is evidence of a religious bias in the translating being justified by what I called reverse-exegesis.
One...you haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read.
Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures and both could be corrected.