I agree. My wife raised an interesting point that many of the people of Jesus' time thought they had the correct interpretation of Old Testament prophesy. Unfortunately, they did not.
The problem, as is often the case, was not that nobody understood the concept of the suffering Messiah, but that the popular expectation and hope was for the conquering king who would vindicate Israel and beat back the Romans kept many from seeing the Messiah in Yeshua (ben Yosef, as it was thought, interestingly)--they didn't want to be saved from their sins, they wanted to be vindicated in their righteousness.
But many did understand and did believe. By the time of Sha'ul's return to Jerusalem, there were "many thousands of Jews . . . who believe, and they [were] all zealous of the Torah" (Ac. 21:20).
Do I think I've got everything right? Heck, no, and I even say so right in the introduction. But that doesn't mean that the study and the discussion shouldn't be held, any more than the fact that we cannot fully comprehend God's "structure" and there are debates on the nature of the Trinity means that we shouldn't do studies on or discuss the Trinity.
Probably because they were looking for symbolism where the scritpures were intended to be taken literally. Had they carefully read the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah in a more literal manner, as the Magi did, then they would have known that the time of the coming of the suffering Messiah was at hand and they might have believed.
For those who are not unsettled by prophesies, it is informative to hear other's assessments. Thankfully so, because otherwise the apostles would have had no audience for the subject. LOL!