You evidently don't understand that in order to accept these assertions in the "new testament" you have to already believe in its authority. Since I do not accept its authority I am no more impressed by these alleged miracles than I am by those of islam or b*ddhism.
And, for what it is worth, over 300 specific prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus during His lifetime. And the Old Testament is clear that there were others to be fulfilled later.
How do you prove that he fulfilled those prophecies? By invoking the "new testament" again? You are committing the fallacy of assuming what you are attempting to prove (which is called "affirmation of the consequent"). By which I mean you are "proving" that J*sus fulfilled these prophecies by invoking the "new testament's" claims that he was fulfilling these prophecies. How do you first prove that the "new testament" is valid? Because until you do you are being irrational invoking its authority to "prove" that J*sus fulfilled any prophecies.
And by the way, I'm sorry, but chr*stianity has always held that J*sus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies. Only radical Fundamentalist Protestants insist that the "royal" prophecies are literal and will be fulfilled at the "second coming." If chr*stianity is to be accepted it has to be in its authentic historical form (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.). If you are going to reinterpret the Bible you might as well be a Noachide yourself.
So - go back and read the New Testament again. You obviously missed quite a bit of it.
Sorry. I didn't miss a word. To accept the "new testament" you have to believe that G-d didn't mean what He said in the "old" one. He said over and over that the convenant with Israel was eternal and there was never the slightest intimation that it was to be replaced at sometime in the future by another religion. Yet if you assume right off the bat that chr*stianity is true you will naturally have to explain this away. May I suggest that you consider the possibility that the "new testament" is not the Word of G-d and that He meant what He said the first time? And by the way, the chr*stian concept of "progressive revelation" which holds that G-d's Word was at first obscure and later became more and more clear (ie, that the Prophets have greater authority than the Torah) is the source of all religious liberalism.
BTW - I notice you have adopted the Jewish affectation of not spelling out the word God...since that is not His proper name (cf Exodus 3:15-16), you are not in danger of breaking the Commandments by spelling it out. What puzzles me, however, is why you use "chr*stian" since you deny the divinity of Christ.
It is forbidden to use the name of G-d "in vain." For this reason it is customary to avoid spelling out G-d's various names and titles in full. It is also traditional to avoid spelling in full the names of false "gxds."
I suggest that your interpretation of Exodus 3:15-16 is not necessarily correct. Why do you assume that the people who received the Torah and who alone possess the rules and the method for faithfully copying it so that every Torah Scroll is an exact copy of the First Torah Scroll do not know how to interpret it? And before you answer something about "traditions of men" I must remind you that chr*stianity has its own "oral tradition" for interpreting the Bible (and the "new testament"). All chr*stianity ever did (until Luther) was replace one set of unwritten traditions with another. Since Protestantism is a recent innovation I am faced with the choice between chr*stian tradition and Jewish tradition. I'll take the latter, thank you very much.
And exactly the same is true of the Old Testament. There is no independent evidence whatsoever for your preposterous assertion that Judaism was founded by a god speaking on the top of a mountain - you just believe in a book because you believe in it, which is circular reasoning.