Nice exposition, Jan. I wasn't aware of how badly Matthew had screwed up there.
A great many of the so-called Messianic prophecies, when carefully examined in their original context, are easily seen not to be such at all. They
clearly refer to the immediate future of whoever wrote the passages. A good but little-known book that goes into this in detail is
The Historical Approach to the Bible by Howard Teeple. It's out of print, unfortunately, but can sometimes be found via online booksearch.
A particularly good example of a claimed Messianic prophecy that, when carefully examined, proves the opposite of what is claimed, is Isaiah 53. About a third of the things that the chapter claims would happen to the subject were not fulfilled at all, as can be seen by reading the Gospel accounts. For example, 53:3 says (NIV), "He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." Yet the Gospel accounts describe Jesus as having large crowds gather around him to hear him speak, and John 12 describes him as coming into Jerusalem to a large crowd that proclaimed him king of Israel. If the fulfillment of prophecy is demonstrated by looking at actual events, then Isaiah 53 doesn't hold up. So in this case the Bible, quite in contrast to the claims of Biblical Inerrantists, is internally inconsistent.
Another third of Isaiah 53 refers to things that are meaninglessly general, and the final third to things that are either a real stretch, and/or can be verified only through the Gospel accounts.
The supposed predictions in Isaiah 53 are like if I predicted that a blond-haired man two meters tall, weighing 250 kg. , would show up at your doorstep. Thirty years later a man two meters tall, weighing 100 kg., shows up. Did my prediction come true?
Of course some defenders like Mishnah will find any number of ways to get around the facts. But that's exactly what flat-earthers and JWs do.
AlanF