We'll start with Ps. 110.4. The second oracle (vv. 4-7) appoints the king as a very special priest, descended from Melchizedek. We know that the priesthood of Melchizedek was a different type of priesthood from the Levitical. And Melchizedek, though not in Levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham. Now, the Torah requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tithe from the people, the children of Abraham. And yet Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tithe from Abraham and blessed him. The Messiah (Ps. 110.4) was to be a priest of the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron.

In Zechariah 6.11-13, the priest is crowned as king. In a text that is messianic, we find that the functions of king and priest are applied to the promised messiah.

As far as his sinlessness, Isa. 53.9 speaks of his innocence. Before Rashi (12th c.), most rabbinic interpretation applied Isa. 53 to the messiah. (See http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html). It is often claimed that Isa. 53 speaks of suffering Israel, but then who is the "our" and "we" of the chapter? The "we" is Israel, which means that the servant is not Israel.

You're right that God has always had all that is on earth. Then about what is Ps. 2.8 speaking? I hope this helps you understand that my reading Jesus as the Messiah is not just an assumption or a problem.

You are first assuming that Jesus is the Messiah. That is your problem. You believe that the Messiah serves a priestly function? No. The Messiah comes from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. He wouldn't have any priestly function. Why wouldn't the Messiah have to offer sacrifices for himself? Nowhere does it say that the Messiah will be sinless.

You believe in the false tradition of Jesus being both a priest and king and sinless. Show me in the Tanakh where it says that the Messiah will be those things.

God has always had all that is on earth. It isn't something He inherits. He has always had it.

Ezekiel, in chapters 40-48 of his prophetic book, is talking about an ideal model temple of his day (as is Jeremiah). There is no reason to think that either of them actually expect this temple to be built. There is certainly no command to build it. If it has nothing to do with the millennium, then it offers no information about sacrifices ending or not ending. So there is no contradiction to Christian teaching.

Yes. But in direct contradiction to Christian teaching, Ezekiel has sacrifices being offered at the future Temple, as does Jeremiah (33.17-18):
17 For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, 18 nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.

Odd that the god of the Jews never promised that sacrifices would one day come to an end.

In fact the god of the Jews promised just the opposite.

The prince is not the messiah. These are not prophecies about Jesus.

As far as the prince:

1. He plays no political or royal role, which the Messiah clearly plays.
2. He has no access through the east gate, which is reserved for divine use.
3. He doesn't serve any priestly function.
4. He offers sacrifices for himself, which the Messiah would not have to do
5. He inherits a small piece of land near the temple, but Ps. 2.8 says the Lord will inherit the whole earth.

Who is the prince in Ezekiel if not the Messiah? How could it be Jesus? He offers for sin offerings for himself. First, consider Ezekiel 42:14 we see that this is a prophecy concerning the Third Temple/Ezekiel's Temple. This is clearly telling the priests what to do.

Then in Ezekiel 44:22-23 the priests are going to teach the laws of holiness, of clean and unclean. These are laws that you believe are not required anymore.

Finally, in Ezekiel 45:22: "And the prince shall make on that day for himself and for all the people of Israel a bull for a sin-offering." "The prince" is clearly the Messiah. This is a prophecy of the Messiah. You claim that Jesus is the Messiah but why then is he offering a bull for a sin-offering in the Temple if his death atoned for all sin?