Thank you for your view.
Well, in my individual belief (my current belief), all the Scriptures you quoted are "symbolic" and "figurative."
I am not a fundamentalist/fundie.
But I do not necessarily want to argue with you on the basis of that belief of mine now.
I am talking on the basis of the "basic doctrine" of JW now.
Also in my reply to you, I said as "for Jehovah's Witnesses" repeatedly.
"Although your comment is interesting, in that explanation, I think that it may be unconvincing for Jehovah's Witnesses, IMO."
"For Jehovah's Witnesses, in many cases, "priests" is not a literal meaning."
I would say once again.
Although I think that your explanation is interesting, I think that you cannot persuade Jehovah's Witnesses by your explanation, IMO.
Also in Jehovah's Witnesses, the Scriptures which you quoted would interpret literally.
But there is a "spiritual meaning" for them/JWs.
(First of all, in English speaking areas, the word "anoint" does not only have a "literal meaning.")
I think that your relatives probably will not consent to your explanation even if you explain those Scriptures literally, IMO.
Probably, your explanation that 144,000 is literal "priests" is unconvincing for Jehovah's Witnesses.
Of course, you have freedom of religion.