a) the wrong prophecies, and thus the fact that Jesus fulfilled them is irrelevant.
The thing is, most of these 'prophecies' are not prophecies at all. Even from the standpoint of Christianity, the vast majority of these are 'typologies' rather than 'prophecies'. That is, they are verses or brief passages read and interpreted to bring out a Christological meaning, without regard to the surrounding context.
A good example of this is:
This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew 2:15)
The passage this refers to is:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hosea 11:1)
Considering that the passage is in the past tense, it is clearly not "prophetic" in the ordinary understanding of the term -- e.g. "And I will make of you a great nation" (Genesis 12:2). From the Christian perspective, these typologies infuse the Hebrew scriptures with Christological significance. From the Jewish perspective, Christians are taking scripture out of context and reading their own preexisting beliefs into the text. If you read the whole of Hosea 11, it is clear that the entirety cannot be referring to Jesus. It is only the first verse to which Christians ascribe Christological significance (rightly, in their view; wrongly, in the Jewish view).
b) an incomplete set of prophecies; Jesus fulfilled some but not all.
There are only a dozen or so passages in the Hebrew scriptures which are generally agreed by Jews to be messianic prophecies. Generally, these are prophecies which Christians believe will be fulfilled at the 'second coming'.
c) we're incorrectly interpreting events as fulfillment.
I think it's less a matter of interpreting events than it is of differences in the ways in which we interpret scripture.
Since you bring up the topic of 'fulfillment', though, I'd like to ask you a question. It makes sense to speak of fulfilling a prophecy -- the events foretold come to pass. But what does it mean, in your understanding, to "fulfil the law" (Matthew 5:17)?
And yes, I see double meaning in Hosea 11: A literal discussion of Israel, and a Christological meaning in parts of it.
Matthew 5:17 -- great passage, and from my perspective, a clearcut reminder to Christians that ALL of the Bible is important. There is indeed a tendency among many Christians to focus only on the New Testament, which I believe to be a grave error. I realize you disagree, but I believe the Bible to be an incredibly complex (both in text and structure) INTEGRATED message, sixty-six books written by over forty different penmen over thousands of years. And I think M5:17 goes right to the heart of the issue; I think Christ's message here about fulfillment was layered, as His messages often were. I think He was warning us not to see Him as something separate and disconnected from the events of the Old Testament, but as an EMBODIMENT thereof, a parallel extension of God's love for Israel. (You've probably heard the expression that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, while the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.) Does this answer your question?
What are your thoughts on Daniel 9, specifically 9:25?
MM