I could argue all these prophecies, just as others have here, but it wouldn't convince you regardless of the evidence given, at least it appears so at this time..... I say this because you are approaching Jesus from the position that Jesus was NOT accepted as the Messiah by the Jews rather than ask what was it that convinced the Jews He was the Messiah.
I do, however, find it interesting you're referencing Josephus as I understood you were not open to anything for reference outside and only the KJ version of the Bible. What's changed. (???)..... Am saying this since you'll look toward an historian, subject to his own leanings, yet you argue that the NT authors, many who actually lived and walked with Jesus, are somehow less reliable....It would certainly be logical to place more significance on those who were actually with Him.
But let me say that one doesn't have ‘to fit’ Jewish requirements to the Biography/Prophecies of Jesus. (Though this is a standard argument Jews are often taught)..... The Christian understanding from the Old Testament, 'when compared' with the details of Jesus’ words and actions (as recorded by the Jewish followers and writers of the New Testament), is a very reasonable one,.... and is actually a 'better' one than Jewish explanations of the relationship between the Suffering/Rejected messianic figure and the Victorious/Acclaimed messianic figure.....It wasn't just a Victorious Messiah Jews were seeking, the Jewish Leadership also understood He would suffer and be rejected.
Just as the OT taught and as Jewish teaching recognized identifying the Messiah was, and is still today, dependent on Israel changing her mind about Jesus, about truth, and about social justice. All which Jesus taught during His ministry....to the crowds...to the diciples...and to the individuals.
No, I'm approaching it wondering why he made certain that they believed he fit the criteria in the first place.
I do, however, find it interesting you're referencing Josephus as I understood you were not open to anything for reference outside and only the KJ version of the Bible.
No, I'm just trying to find the oldest possible references that I can still read myself. I can't read Greek or Aramaic, but I can read Middle English (which is essentially what the KJV is). Therefore, I don't want any newer version.
I can read English translations of Josephus, and if I can find the oldest possible ones, those will be the ones I'd cleave to. Because the fewer translation processes they have gone through, the less tinkering they have been subject to. Do you understand?
...Am saying this since you'll look toward an historian, subject to his own leanings, yet you argue that the NT authors, many who actually lived and walked with Jesus, are somehow less reliable....It would certainly be logical to place more significance on those who were actually with Him.
I believe Josephus and Paul equally, in that I think they recorded what they wanted recorded. That Josephus seems to have had no vested interest in Jesus either way makes him more reliable than Paul where that one particular story is concerned.
But let me say that one doesn't have ‘to fit’ Jewish requirements to the Biography/Prophecies of Jesus.
But do you see there are two different ways they can fit? One is that Jesus' life is changed to fit the Messianic narrative, and the other is that the Messianic narrative is changed to fit Jesus' life.