It would be foolish to use the same word 'priest' to translate 2 different Greek words with radically different meanings.

Thankfully our Bibles use the word 'elder' and not 'priest' to translate the word 'presbuteros'. That is because presbuteros does not mean the same thing as 'Hierateuma'.

Transliteration may have occurred for the word presbuteros, as it clearly did with the word 'baptism' and 'bishop' but even if so, all it does is prove that people started confusing concepts of church leadership by using the wrong words.

Words have meanings, and just saying that 'priest' is a transliteration of 'presbuteros' does not make it right or accurate. The concept of 'priests' that was familiar to everyone at the time the Bible was translated into English for the common people was something like that of a celibate church leader who has received special grace from bishops through 'holy orders' to be such.

Tell me, how could such celibate priests ever become bishops (episkopos) who are supposed to be the husband of one wife, having children?

1Ti 3:2 A bishop [episkopos strongs 1985] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach ... having his children in subjection (vs 4);

And how could the 'bishops' who ordained such 'priests' be genuine bishops according to the New Testament, which requires them to be MARRIED men who prove their capacity to lead by running a family well!

Our Bibles use the word 'elders' and not 'priests' to translate presbuteros. Thank God for this.

The concept of a priest as a kind of intermediary between God and man IS what is practiced in the R.C. and Orthodox church. The idea is that this holy man can bring God to us through sacraments. We cannot approach God in the same way he does, so we need him to get the special grace for us.

The fact that we are priests mean we DO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS to God which is what the book of Hebrews is all about. The confusion on this issue arises PRECISELY because of things like transliteration of words which mean something different in the Greek to be words of choice describing a totally different office.

As for the idea that the R.C. teaches that Christ is not actually sacrificed in the mass but we merely enter into his eternal sacrifice through the sacrament - I would like to see your source for this in Catholic theology.

I could go along with the idea inasmuch as we are supposed to 'remember the Lord' and have 'fellowship with Him' during this Lord's Supper, which probably is supposed to be a regular meal enjoyed in the presence of God rather than the ritual it has become (though I do participate in that ritual myself in the churches I attend).

The Council of Trent said that if anyone denies that the host is literally the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that it is God, he is anathema [cursed] and cut off.

I will do a little more research on Catholic dogma to confirm that I am not misrepresenting their position.

Back to the question of elders and priests:

Peter writes:

1Pe 5:1 The elders [presbuteros] who are among you I exhort, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed;
1Pe 5:2 shepherd [pastor] the flock of God among you, overseeing [episkopeo - same root as the word for bishop] not by compulsion, but rather willingly, not in fondness for dishonest gain, but rather eagerly;

This verse proves that bishops, elders and pastors are really one and the same thing, or at least so closely related in function and concept that they amount to amount to different degrees of the same office.

If elders are not pastors, then why does Peter tell the elders to pastor the church of God among them.

Why does he tell these elders to OVERSEE or do the work of a bishop?

If you want to call such men 'priests' then you have to be
very clear that you have chosen a word which connotes something quite different in meaning to the hearers.

I am not objecting to the existence of church leadership. God places some men as leaders.

But I do take issue with the whole idea that church leaders have access to God which is not available to 'ordinary' believers. This is what the word 'priest' suggests. It connotes the whole Levitical system where only certain members of the tribe of Levi could even go near the presence of God in the tabernacle. A lot of traditional churches also employ architecture and furnishings in the front part of the church which suggest something like a kind of 'holy of holies' which is the domain of the priest.

If 'ordinary' believers don't enjoy access to God it is because of sin, ignorance or laziness. Actually, there is nothing 'ordinary' at all about a true believer. Jesus said that believers in Him would do the same works he did. (John 14:12). Such things could only be done because believers can have access to the mind of God through the Holy Spirit. Jesus did all His works in dependence on the Holy Spirit. How can we as believers do the same works without having access to the mind of the Holy Spirit? If we could, we would be more powerful than Jesus, and we would be more autonomous also - something which is quite foreign to the concept of true Christianity.

Since we have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit, since all 'veils' and 'mysteries' and 'curtains' between man and God were dealt with at the cross, once and for all, I do not believe that it was the Holy Spirit who inspired this ecclesiastical setting up of barriers, mysteries and obstacles to enjoying the grace, favor, power and working of God in our lives. Rather the spirit of the scribes and pharisees got in.