How do Hebrew Scriptures show Jesus as the Messiah?

“Perhaps religion is what we make of it.”

Religion should not be “what we make of it,” but rather what it is and is not.

Deu_11:13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

If He commands this level of zealousness, how can you say that religion is what you “make of it?” Our search, therefore, should be for what God has commanded, and to reject what He has not commanded, not leaning on our own works, but instead leaning on the God who works both to will and to do righteousness with the heart that He himself gives to us:

Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

Psa_73:26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.

Eze_36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

This is a radical dependence of God for all things, and not on ourselves.

Though the Talmud is certainly not considered inspired by Christians it does give a sense of what people were looking for at the time of the Second Temple. It makes the point that the Messiah will take up residence in Rome. Hmmm... The Messiah in Rome.... Ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church? Ever heard of the Vicar of the (Messiah) Christ? If there is any prophetic sense to the expectations of the Hebrew people, then its not simply arbitrary or anti-Christian that the Church, the body of the Messiah, would have its headquarters in Rome.

Interesting circular reasoning.
Using a phrase from the uninspired Talmud
to prove the superiority of the Roman" church".
When we all know that the Roman "church was started
by the Roman Pontiff Constantine at Nicea in 325 CE.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

“When we all know that the Roman “church was started
by the Roman Pontiff Constantine at Nicea in 325 CE.”

I would say, even later than that. Even when they were talking about the “Primacy of Peter,” as late as 600AD they still regarded the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome as all being his “successors” and sitting in his ‘seat.’ It wasn’t until the Pope after Gregory that they claimed the title of Universal Bishop.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.