Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

Correct, but at least now we know that "the other guy" isn't wrong about everything, and we have one less thing to dispute.

If only it was that easy. What if we arrive at the same place but because of different theories?

Who said anything about them coming back? The fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD was the beginning of the time of the Gentiles. And we know its still the time of the Gentiles because the Gentile Moslems are still trampling the Temple mount.

The time of the Gentiles started when Peter was given a vision and he went to see a Gentile right then. That doesn't seem to be too long after Stephen was killed.

So the time of the Gentiles is over (at some point)and then what?

I'm not sure that Rev 11 is talking about the "times of the Gentiles that Christ mentioned in Luke:

Revelation 11:1-2 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Do you take those 42 months literally or figuratively?

Like you have already said, our bodies are temples, we pray at times while in our bodies. Since this is during the Beast's time there is no earthly temple. The one being shut to man is closed just before the vials are poured out.
The ones measured would be pretty much the Church. Outside their bodies is the courtyard, the world around us.

If this was a literal temple the two witnesses would be inside it, They die in the street in Jerusalem. The two witnesses are in that city at the same time the beast is operating. The two cannot be killed until their allotted time is up. The time of the Gentiles is over when they are called up to heaven and nobody new is added to who will be there for the next phase.

Literal to the hour

If the 42 months are literal, they are probably talking about the 3 1/2 year trib that happened before the destruction of the Temple. This is totally different than the "times of the Gentiles" that started after the Destruction of the Temple in Luke 21:24.

It is the 3 1/2 years that mark the rise and fall of first two woes in Revelation. The same time this refers to,
2Th:2:8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th:2:9: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th:2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Which is the same as this time,
Re:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Why do you think that is talking about the times of the Gentiles?

Like you said a verse just before this was fulfilled in the garden. Smite the Shepherd and the sheep will scatter (or be scattered). Christ was smote on the cross, not in the garden. The scattering was Israel in 70AD or the persecution that was going on when Stephen went to the temple to speak.. The 6 verses before that were about Israel, Gentiles are the little ones in Vs:7. That is who Christ's hand was turned too, the Gospel was being preached to them and that was the start of the time of the gentiles. Vs:8 goes right to the end of that time, His second coming at the 7th trump. The 1/3 that come through would be the same as are listed in Re:20:4. I don't know if that number is just for the population at that time or if it includes those in Daniel 12 1or2

There is every indication that the part you quoted was also fulfilled in the first century. Indeed, compare the blue words with 1 Peter:

1 Peter 1:3-9 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

When is 'ready to be revealed in the last time'? Notice these have neither seen nor know Him. Is that similar to Job meeting God?

And then a little later in the same book Peter declares more fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy:

1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

See that? They all look fulfilled in the first century to me.

Being called out of darkness could also be a resurrection from the dead, in this case it is at the Great White Throne as they become,
Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. The ones who had obtained mercy before were alive for the 1000 years, the ones being granted mercy here are called 'the rest' in Re:20

How did you connect the "little book" in Rev 10 with Daniel? There is nothing in the text that says it contains the names of those who died in Christ.

What other book would it be at that point in time? Sweet because it contained the names of those in His book of life, bitter because it is a little book and there are few names in it compared to how many people have lived.

He already has arrived as Messiah the King according to John 12:

John 12:12-16 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. 14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, 15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. 16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

I would be very interested to know what verses of the OT you take as prophetic of Christ's future "arrival" as "the Messiah as King." Just start with the best and most obvious.

The best is usually the last for some reason. It will sometimes even stop a thread, with luck it ends with an 'and then what happens'.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

If only it was that easy. What if we arrive at the same place but because of different theories?

I'd call that "grace!"

The time of the Gentiles started when Peter was given a vision and he went to see a Gentile right then. That doesn't seem to be too long after Stephen was killed.

How did you determine that? The "Times of the Gentiles" is mentioned only once, by Christ in Luke:

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Christ didn't say anything about what happens after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled.

So the time of the Gentiles is over (at some point)and then what?

Where did you get the idea that "the time of the Gentiles is over (at some point)"? Sure, its a possibility, but the Bible doesn't actually say that. Remember, we are looking for the foundation of your futurist eschatology here. Guesses and hints will not suffice as a foundation for any valid Biblical doctrine.

And the Bible doesn't say "then what" or even if there is a "then what." Where do you get these ideas? Why do you press them as if they are important when in fact the Bible is silent about these things? I think that's why your theology is so hard for me to believe. Most of it is not based on something other than the plain reading of Scripture, as far as I can tell.

And then a little later in the same book Peter declares more fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy:

1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

See that? They all look fulfilled in the first century to me.

Being called out of darkness could also be a resurrection from the dead, in this case it is at the Great White Throne as they become,
Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. The ones who had obtained mercy before were alive for the 1000 years, the ones being granted mercy here are called 'the rest' in Re:20

You seem to be ignoring my answers.

How did you connect the "little book" in Rev 10 with Daniel? There is nothing in the text that says it contains the names of those who died in Christ.

What other book would it be at that point in time? Sweet because it contained the names of those in His book of life, bitter because it is a little book and there are few names in it compared to how many people have lived.

What do you mean "what other other book could it be?" It is what it is. You have absolutely no warrant to make up ideas and stick them into the Bible. The passage says nothing about that "little book" containing the names of those who died in Christ.

Do you realize that you are just inventing these ideas and sticking them in the Bible?

He already has arrived as Messiah the King according to John 12:

John 12:12-16 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. 14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, 15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. 16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

I would be very interested to know what verses of the OT you take as prophetic of Christ's future "arrival" as "the Messiah as King." Just start with the best and most obvious.

The best is usually the last for some reason. It will sometimes even stop a thread, with luck it ends with an 'and then what happens'.

Wayne

Would it be too much to ask you to answer that one simple question? Please post the best and most obvious OT prophecy of Christ's future "arrival" as "the Messiah as King."

Thanks!

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

How did you determine that? The "Times of the Gentiles" is mentioned only once, by Christ in Luke:

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Christ didn't say anything about what happens after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled.

Two things are in the above verse. Captivity will be over and Gentiles will cease to 'trod' down Jerusalem. The ones who see the bodies of the two witnesses are Gentiles, in Jerusalem.
Re:11:9: And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

That would also make the 7,000 and the remnant Gentiles,
Re:11:13: And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

To apply that to 70AD you again have to take life away from somebody that is dead physically and is to be resurrected literally. The 7,000 would not die either, nor would anybody give glory to God because they would not be frightened.

Where did you get the idea that "the time of the Gentiles is over (at some point)"? Sure, its a possibility, but the Bible doesn't actually say that. Remember, we are looking for the foundation of your futurist eschatology here. Guesses and hints will not suffice as a foundation for any valid Biblical doctrine.

The verse you posted said there is an end. When the Jews captivity in the Nations is over. (nothing these days points to it being over, first and foremost Christ is in control of Jerusalem and the rest of the whole world before anybody is invited back. So whatever the situation is there today isn't important enough to even be mentioned, or if it is, it is only briefly)

And the Bible doesn't say "then what" or even if there is a "then what." Where do you get these ideas? Why do you press them as if they are important when in fact the Bible is silent about these things? I think that's why your theology is so hard for me to believe. Most of it is not based on something other than the plain reading of Scripture, as far as I can tell.

Plain reading would seem to have one believe what is written as being fact. Eze:37:1-12 a physical resurrection of people associated with the 12 tribes.
Eze:39 God does not protect Israel just before His return and they all die by the sword, not His nor any that are acting on His behalf, by the enemy of all men, Satan. They are gathered again after that. A person should have read 37 before 39 so you can safely assume that this would require a resurrection from physical death. Plain reading.

You seem to be ignoring my answers.

I'm certainly not trying too. I would agree that Gentiles became God's people back then. That is still the beginning of the time of the Gentiles. If they were never to be judged as a people then it would go on forever, but they are going to be judged and not all will be alive after that judgment.

1Pe:4:17: For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pe:4:18: And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

That would appear to be Christians, the time is roughly given,
1Pe:4:12: Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

The sometimes not so simple task is to find associated verses, a good place to start if judgment is involved is at Christ's return or at Judgment Day. In this case His return would be the time that He would judge His people. Here is a verse from one such passage.
Zec:13:8: And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

All the land of the Gentiles covers all the far corners of the earth.

What do you mean "what other other book could it be?" It is what it is. You have absolutely no warrant to make up ideas and stick them into the Bible. The passage says nothing about that "little book" containing the names of those who died in Christ.

I assume there is enough in that chapter to point to it being Christ's return. Daniel covers and event that would be the end of the 2nd woe and part of the 3rd woe.

Da:11:45: And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Da:12:1: And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Da:12:2: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So while my ideas may appear far fetched there are verses that have pointed me in that direction. If I say I think those two references apply to the same event how can you prove they do not. After all 'little book' is used only once, Daniel already stated there would be names in a book, Psalms also says there will be names in a book.
Psalms:69:28: Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Delivered means to be left alive, or returned back to life.

Do you realize that you are just inventing these ideas and sticking them in the Bible?

Do you still have that opinion even though I supplied two references to there being a book (of the living) that will be read that is before the one opened at the GWT?

Would it be too much to ask you to answer that one simple question? Please post the best and most obvious OT prophecy of Christ's future "arrival" as "the Messiah as King."

The best one is the one that will convince you, that isn't always the first one.
Zep:1:14: The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
Zep:1:15: That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
Zep:1:16: A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.
Zep:1:17: And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
Zep:1:18: Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD's wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

For more info on that day all you have to do is find all the verses that have 'day of the Lord' and then go and read that passage. Then do the same thing for 'that day' because I think you will find that in any book after Daniel any verse having those words more often than not is about that one day. In case you want to question where I come up with one day it starts with this verse
Re:18:8: Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Isa:10:17: And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;

Zec:3:9: For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Just a recommendation....it's not always required to list large quantities of scripture to answer a question. This tends to confuse the reader.

And quality interpretation of a single passage says a lot more than a large quantity of incorrectly interpreted passages. And I hope nobody took me as offensive in saying this. You know I love you all...it's all this reading; it begins to sound....well, like

Joe

P.S. this was not directed at anyone.

[MHz]

large quantities of scripture to answer a question. This tends to confuse the reader.

Good one Joe!
A Christian forum where (too much)Scripture 'hurts the eyes'. ROFLMAO

For myself (probably the biggest offender of all) translations is one reason, not all texts read the very same in all of them. Of more importance is that 1 verse may have the 'keyword' in it but without the passage you lose much of how/where/when/why it happens. Just looking up 'grace' has it saying some things that would seem to be quite strange (sin more so grace can abound more) the verse not in the results is the one that says 'God forbid!"
The reason that I use (showing a total lack of sympathy for bandwidth usage) is that the threads move faster. When I read a thread with just a bunch of (:'s) I stop and go and look them up and then come back and reply. Heaven forbid I should use an on-line source (double trunk traffic). If the verses are there for me to read-along then I can spend my time on the answer rather than confirming the reference.

I might be able to find some linux friens that could upload a fairly large file to the host that would send some short-cuts to the server that would be like a cache. (if I reference the same document that I have already posted (or somebody else) is in a compressed file held on both server and client. Day-to-day traffic could be down to a few 100 packets/client.

[TheForgiven]

Good one Joe!
A Christian forum where (too much)Scripture 'hurts the eyes'. ROFLMAO

I suppose I had that one coming....I set myself up for that one. What I was trying to say is that too much scripture posted out of context boggs up the forum and causes too much explanation to refute or answer. In short, when someone posts too many scriptures out of context, that's double the posting required to explain the errors, thus creating longer and longer threads.

And when outsiders or newcomers try reading it, they skip through and leave questions unanswered. This also causes the debate-circle to keep returning to its starting point, going round and round.

I try to stay within context of any passage I quote. But in order to do that with Old Testament prophesies, such as the Psalm or Isaiah, you MUST stay within the boundary of it's time and meaning. Generally, I try posting prophets such as Jeremiah and Zacheriah, as well as the other small prophets (smaller by document size and not stature). It's easier to pin-point their time frame by the context alone....the same for Daniel's prophesy. But Isaiah has prophesies which are fulfilled in "pockets" of scripture, and not necessarily the entire paragraph. Reading the passage about the Messiah's birth from a virgin is an example.

Isaiah 7
10 Moreover the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!” 13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”

Ahaz is told to ask for a sign. Well, lets say that Ahaz agrees to ask for one, how long ago was this prior to the birth of Christ by the Virgin Mary? Then in verse 17 it reads, "The Lord will bring the King of Assyria upon you and your people, and your fathers house....." We know this was fulfilled when the Assyrians attacked the Isrealites....I believe prior to the Babylonian invasion. But these things occurred 500+ years before the birth of Christ. This is an example of "pockets" of prophesy. The Greek Orthodox Church interprets Revelation in the same manner.

So I hope nobody took me wrong....

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I suppose I had that one coming....I set myself up for that one. What I was trying to say is that too much scripture posted out of context boggs up the forum and causes too much explanation to refute or answer. In short, when someone posts too many scriptures out of context, that's double the posting required to explain the errors, thus creating longer and longer threads.

I agree. My desire is to narrow things down to the essential point of contention so we can resolve it. Usually the opposite happens because one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know we have a blizzard of unresovled issues and mile-long posts.

And when outsiders or newcomers try reading it, they skip through and leave questions unanswered. This also causes the debate-circle to keep returning to its starting point, going round and round.

Exactly! Its the "round and round" part that can be so frustrating. Nobody feels like anybody is hearing what they say when that happens. So our common mission should be to narrow things down to single identifiable issues that can actually have a hope of resolution.

Ahaz is told to ask for a sign. Well, lets say that Ahaz agrees to ask for one, how long ago was this prior to the birth of Christ by the Virgin Mary? Then in verse 17 it reads, "The Lord will bring the King of Assyria upon you and your people, and your fathers house....." We know this was fulfilled when the Assyrians attacked the Isrealites....I believe prior to the Babylonian invasion. But these things occurred 500+ years before the birth of Christ. This is an example of "pockets" of prophesy. The Greek Orthodox Church interprets Revelation in the same manner.

Isn't that an example of a double fulfillment? The prophecy uses "Immanuel" as a sign of when the kingdoms shall fall:

Isaiah 7:14-16 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah prophesied the destruction of Samaria (capital of the Ten Nothern Tribes of Israel) and Syrria (neighboring nation in league with Samaria against Judah). All that was fulfilled back then in the 8th century BC. But Isaiah 7:14 was also fulfilled in the virginal conception of Jesus Christ. So I see it as a double fulfillment.

How do you see it?

So I hope nobody took me wrong....

Joe

I doubt that happened. All is good.

Richard

[rota]

Hi Richard and all!

Rich, somewhere along this thread the question was raised when Jesus became the High Priest. Good point! And it really is a bit of a worry. Let me give you some disconnected(?) points that probably hold more questions than answers...

1.) From my reading of the Scriptures I got the feeling that God does nothing without a covenant. The OT is full of covenants between God and man and the NT referes to those covenants (Abraham, Yacob, Yeshua) freqeuntly.

So maybe there is something as a heavenly master covenant that makes Yeshua the High Priest

Having said that here is my next problem. You already touched it but the conclusion was not quite clear for me:

2.) If Yeshua was the Great Atonment Sacrifice (as I believe ) can he be the High Priest at the same time? There was no one else that offered him up, right? He "delivered himself up" so he must have been the High Priest.

2a.) Since Yeshua was under law and fulfilled the Law, he had to respect the Aaronic levitical priesthood of his day. He couldn't by God's justice just hijack the priesthood. So can we mark an event or situation where the priest lost his authority and Yeshua received it?

Question, questions....


Michael

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1.) From my reading of the Scriptures I got the feeling that God does nothing without a covenant. The OT is full of covenants between God and man and the NT referes to those covenants (Abraham, Yacob, Yeshua) freqeuntly.

So maybe there is something as a heavenly master covenant that makes Yeshua the High Priest

I think its part of His eternal identity. Like His identity as the Son of God. This is confirmed by His appearance to Abraham in Genesis 14.18. Folks dispute if that was really a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ or only an earthly priest who played a role as a type of Christ. I conclude for a number of reasons that it really was Christ. One of those reasons is based on the gematria of His name:

Mechizedek King of Salem = 754 = Yehoshua HaMeshiach (Jesus the Christ)

Having said that here is my next problem. You already touched it but the conclusion was not quite clear for me:

2.) If Yeshua was the Great Atonment Sacrifice (as I believe ) can he be the High Priest at the same time? There was no one else that offered him up, right? He "delivered himself up" so he must have been the High Priest.

Yep! He was both priest and sacrificial victim in one. I talk about that on page 277 (Spoke 14) of the Bible Wheel book.

2a.) Since Yeshua was under law and fulfilled the Law, he had to respect the Aaronic levitical priesthood of his day. He couldn't by God's justice just hijack the priesthood. So can we mark an event or situation where the priest lost his authority and Yeshua received it?

Yes, Christ respected the Levitical priesthood as a man born under the Law, but He Himself never had anything to do with it as a Priest. In the natural, He "sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Hebrews 7:14).

And in the supernatural, I believe He always has been and always will be a "high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

Question, questions....

Michael

Good questions indeed!

Thanks Michael,

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard and all!

Rich, somewhere along this thread the question was raised when Jesus became the High Priest. Good point! And it really is a bit of a worry. Let me give you some disconnected(?) points that probably hold more questions than answers...

1.) From my reading of the Scriptures I got the feeling that God does nothing without a covenant. The OT is full of covenants between God and man and the NT referes to those covenants (Abraham, Yacob, Yeshua) freqeuntly.

So maybe there is something as a heavenly master covenant that makes Yeshua the High Priest

Having said that here is my next problem. You already touched it but the conclusion was not quite clear for me:

2.) If Yeshua was the Great Atonment Sacrifice (as I believe ) can he be the High Priest at the same time? There was no one else that offered him up, right? He "delivered himself up" so he must have been the High Priest.

2a.) Since Yeshua was under law and fulfilled the Law, he had to respect the Aaronic levitical priesthood of his day. He couldn't by God's justice just hijack the priesthood. So can we mark an event or situation where the priest lost his authority and Yeshua received it?

Question, questions....


Michael

Matt:4:12-17 says Jesus began to preach after John was in prison. John taught in the wilderness, Jesus was teaching in the Holy Places.

Mr:1:14 & 15 basically says the same, after John was in prison.

Luke doesn't cover John being put into prison but it does cove Him teaching in His home town the same message He began to preach in Matthew & Mark.

Jesus also seemed to start healing a lot of people after that event. The two accounts of Jesus's generations cover His right to the throne of David (SC is when He claims that right) and Luke gives us His heritage that determines who He is priest to.

John was born to parents that were from the house of Levi and his mother was a daughter of Aaron. Elizibeth and Mary were cousins so can it be assumed that Mary was also a daughter of Aaron?

I would have to look it up again but I'm more than a little sure that a High Priest was determined by two things, the right heritage and being anointed by God. John the Baptist had both of those things.
Can a High Priest bless a sacrifice? Even though Jesus was sin-free He still went through baptism of water, repentance of sin and forgiveness of any sins already committed. If John was baptizing that was something a priest would do. Jesus's disciples also baptised, would He have to have been a priest to have them do that, Can you even have disciples if you are not a priest, being that both Jesus and John had disciples?