It's not my perspective.
And, I think your understanding of the traditional meaning of prophet in Hebrew literature and culture is more narrow than was the reality. I think it was a much more robust, rich term than you seem to think it was.
Perspective has nothing to do with it, unless you are going to 'spiritualize' the non-literal fulfillment away. They spoke forth an unconditional and literal judgment from God, by God. It didn't occur. As far as my understanding of the term goes, the prophets (and prophecy) of the new testament are under the same legitimate requirement (although being stoned is not one of them). If you want to blow off the old testament because it is Hebrew in cultural origin, you do so at great risk. Furthermore, the new testament writers were either Hebrews or supervised by them (Luke). Their relation of the term 'prophet' would naturally be within the cultural understanding of the old testament. My review of that term in the new testament show that the definition tends to be the same.
We are warned in the new testament to avoid false prophets. Therefore there has to be a standard of what 'true' is. Taking the instruction of the Bible as a whole, that 'true' is still the factual and actual fulfillment of the prophecy. Again, perception has nothing to do with it, proper biblical evaluation and accountability does. Continued false prophetic utterances given credence harms the body of Christ, not edifies it. And for you information, I am a pentecostal, I believe in the prophetic word and the richness thereof.
No doubt the false prophets in the Old Testament tried that very same line as they were being carted off to be stoned.