Here’s a tightened “ALL + MORE” evidence pack for your exact structure (Qumran → Jesus-priest → Muhammad-prophet/royal → Jerusalem history). I’m sticking to texts and primary-source translations as much as possible.

I) Dead Sea Scrolls: Prophet + Aaron + Israel (multi-figure expectation)

1) 1QS 9:11 (Community Rule) — the core “three figures” line

• “until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” (ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
  This is your anchor: Prophet + (Aaron) priestly + (Israel) royal/lay leader(s).

2) Damascus Document (CD) — repeated “Aaron and Israel” messiah formula (not a one-off)

You wanted the “multiple references” point. We have at least one direct translation page, and then independent indexing that lists the repeated loci.

• Direct CD excerpt (one example): “until there will arise the Anointed from Aaron and from Israel …” (ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
• A Dead Sea Scrolls index summary explicitly lists the recurring “messiah(s) of Aaron and Israel” pattern across 1QS 9:11 and CD passages (including DD/CD 12:23 and DD/CD 14:19). (ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
• A non-sectarian overview article also lists the same repeated CD references as standard loci for “messiah (singular) of Aaron and Israel.” (kesherjournal.com)

What this gives you: CD shows the “Aaron + Israel” messiah expectation is embedded across the document’s legal/community framework, not a single verse.

3) 1QSa 2:11–22 (Rule of the Congregation / Messianic banquet) — priest-first order

• The banquet rule is regularly identified as priest-led, with the Messiah of Israel present in the same scene and order-of-precedence emphasized. (Dr. Scott Hahn – The Official Site)

What this gives you: in this messianic setting the priestly role is structurally primary, which supports your “priest outranks king” claim.

4) 4Q174 (Florilegium) — two end-time agents named together

• “the Branch of David … shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law …” (explicit pairing). (Intertextual Bible)
• Summary explicitly frames 4Q174 as announcing the coming of two messiahs: Branch of David + Interpreter of the Law. (Intertextual Bible)

What this gives you: a clean royal + priestly/teacher dual structure in one text.

5) 4Q175 (Testimonia) — “three-track” compilation logic

• 4Q175 is widely described as a pre-Christian proof-text chain that combines (a) Deut 18 prophet-text, (b) Num 24 ruler-text, and (c) Deut 33 Levi-text. (Intertextual Bible)

What this gives you: an internal “bundle” that naturally reads as multiple end-time roles, not one merged office.

6) MORE DSS support you can add (still on-theme)

A) 4Q521 (“Messianic Apocalypse”) — a strongly “prophetic/Isaiah-61” messianic profile

• It explicitly uses the Isaiah-style pattern: healing, raising, “good news to the poor.” (Intertextual Bible)
  This helps your “Prophet role exists distinctly in the DSS ecosystem” point (even if debates exist about singular/plural).

B) War Scroll (1QM) — eschatological war structure with priests/Levites and tribal chiefs

• The text’s war organization repeatedly foregrounds priests/Levites alongside tribal leadership structures. (Qumran)

C) “Prince/Leader of the Congregation” appears as a messianic war leader in related fragments

• 4Q285 / “War of the Messiah” is literally framed around a Leader/Prince of the Congregation in final conflict language. (Wikipedia)
  This bolsters your “royal/political/military messiah lane exists separately” claim.

II) Mary is Levite → Jesus fits the priestly lane (your premise + the strongest textual chain)

1) Luke anchors

• Elizabeth is explicitly “of the daughters of Aaron” (Greek shown in parallel witnesses). (Bible Hub)
• Mary is called Elizabeth’s syngenis (“relative/kinswoman”). (Greek Bible)

2) Protoevangelium of James — Mary “in the Temple until twelve”

• It directly states Mary was in the Temple and that at twelve the priests deliberate what to do. (New Advent)

3) Qur’an 19:28 + Sahih Muslim 2135

• Qur’an 19:28: “O sister of Aaron …” (Quran.com)
• Sahih Muslim 2135: explains the phrase as a known naming/epithet convention. (Sunnah)

What this gives you for debate: you can say “even the mainstream Islamic defense admits the phrase intentionally ties Mary to Aaron-identity language,” whether by lineage-idiom or naming-idiom.

4) Hebrews: Jesus explicitly framed as priest

• Hebrews’ “priest forever” line is one of the clearest priest-office claims (you can cite any major Bible site for the verse; here is the standard wording via BibleHub/BibleGateway style pages). (Bible Gateway)

(If you want, I’ll pull the exact Hebrews 5:6 page too, but the priest-office emphasis is not in dispute.)

III) Muhammad as “Prophet like Moses” + law/authority lane (your proof-texts)

1) Deuteronomy 18:18 (“prophet like you”)

• The verse text itself: “I will raise up … a prophet like you … put my words in his mouth …” (Bible Hub)

2) “Brethren” language — your Edom analogy text

• Deut 2:8 explicitly calls the Edomites “our brethren, the children of Esau.” (Bible Gateway)
  That’s the textual basis you use to argue “brethren” can include collateral lines.

3) Ishmael promise + Kedar

• Gen 17:20: Ishmael → twelve princes + great nation. (Bible Gateway)
• Gen 25:13: Ishmael’s sons include Kedar. (Bible Study Tools)

4) Isaiah 42:10–11 (new song + Kedar villages + Sela)

• The key geography line is explicit: “the villages of Kedar … inhabitants of Sela …” and it is paired with the “new song” call. (Bible Hub)

IV) Jerusalem history: ban/exclusion context + later reversal traditions

1) Hadrian’s post-revolt remaking of Jerusalem (baseline historical anchor)

• Britannica covers Hadrian’s conversion of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina after the Bar Kokhba period (the standard starting point for later exclusion policies discussion). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

2) “Temple Mount was covered with rubbish” + Kaʿb al-Aḥbār tradition

• Temple Mount page summarizes the later tradition: Umar is shown the area, finds it covered with rubbish, and Kaʿb al-Aḥbār helps identify the Rock. (Wikipedia)
• A PDF study discussing early narratives also mentions Umar going to the “rubbish” covering the site and ordering clearing. (Semantic Scholar)

3) Jewish hopes during the Persian conquest (614) — “deliverance” framing exists in Jewish-history summaries

• COJS summary states Palestinian Jewry saw the Persian conquest as an opportunity for deliverance from Byzantine rule (this is your “messianic hopes flare under geopolitical shifts” setup). (Center for Online Judaic Studies)
• Wikipedia’s Sasanian conquest overview also notes the conquest interrupted the Byzantine ban and that Jews were able to enter again (useful context framing, not your strongest authority). (Wikipedia)

What you now have (the “ALL + MORE” claim, cleanly)

1. Direct triad wording (1QS 9:11). (ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
2. Damascus Document repetition (direct excerpt + independent indexing/overviews showing multiple loci). (ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
3. Priest-first messianic banquet structure (1QSa). (Dr. Scott Hahn – The Official Site)
4. Branch of David + Interpreter of Law paired (4Q174). (Intertextual Bible)
5. Three-track Testimonia logic (4Q175). (Intertextual Bible)
6. Extra DSS reinforcement: 4Q521 prophetic profile + war-leader “Prince of the Congregation” lane. (Intertextual Bible)
7. Mary-Levi chain anchors (Luke kinship + Temple-raised tradition + Qur’an “Aaron” language + Muslim 2135). (YouVersion | The Bible App | Bible.com)
8. Kedar + new song marker is explicit in Isaiah 42:10–11. (Bible Hub)
9. Jerusalem “rubbish/clearing + Kaʿb” tradition exists in standard historical summaries. (Wikipedia)

If you want this to be usable in a fight, tell me the format you want and I’ll output it that way immediately:

• Debate card (1–2 pages, bullet “claim → quote → takeaway”)
• Video script (5–8 minutes)
• Cross-exam list (20 rapid questions, each anchored to one citation)