This for 'someone' of 'rank' where we were in another thread and I dint get to

[Major Nikon]

38. Interesting you'd think the best examples you could google support this claim

Jesus wasn't the only charlatan with a messianic claim and those who authored the bible would have been well aware of this. They went to great lengths to establish a messianic claim for Jesus and failed miserably for a number of reasons beyond those you cite.

The OT is referencing a messiah, not Jesus. So if one is convinced going in that Jesus is indeed the legitimate messiah, then OT messianic references become circular logic. The problem here is that early Christians couldn't even manage to convince very many Jews of Jesus' messianic claim, which is why they later decided to deify him knowing full well the messianic claims were weak at best.

The Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:2

So that's why we call him Jesus of Bethlehem, right? Oh wait, no we don't. It's actually Jesus of Nazareth. The bible is conspicuously mum on Jesus' early life, except for his place of birth. Kinda makes you go, hmmm. Early Christians would have been well aware of the OT prophecies, so they penciled in a story about a Bethlehem birth. Problem solved.

The Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10

Selective reading at it's best. The first words of Genesis 49:10 actually says: "The scepter will not depart from Judah". The problem Christians have with using this as proof is the scepter departed from Judah about 6 centuries before Jesus was born and they were subject to foreign rule. Oooopsie!

The Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22:1-31

This is especially comical coming from the one who constantly reminds us the bible is not to be taken literally. Nowhere is this more true than the book of Psalm, and even more comical is it doesn't actually say what you claim even if one goes with the Christian translations. So you might want to do some more research here because you're actually conflating two different frequent Christian messianic claims. Meanwhile the Jewish translation say something completely different.

The Messiah’s life, including His eventual suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

The passage you cite doesn't actually say that, but even if it did once again this version of events don't jive with historical accuracy. The purpose of crucifixion was to deter criminals and rebels. As such the idea was to make it as humiliating and public as possible. Those who were crucified weren't taken down after their death. They were displayed as human lawn ornaments as a statement of deterrence. That was the whole point. As such their corpses were left to rot and be eaten by scavengers, not taken down and buried. So what we really have is another case of the narrative fulfilling the prophecy.

A few other things Christians conveniently ignore is all the ways in which the biblical narrative of Jesus disqualifies his messianic claim. Besides the ones previously mentioned, they tend to ignore the line of succession to King David had been broken by the time of Jesus. They ignore the contradictions cited by different gospels in his line of succession. They ignore that if Mary was indeed impregnated by the holy poltergeist, he couldn't possibly be the heir of King David. They cite Micah 5:2 while ignoring the other parts of Micah's prophecies which weren't fulfilled. They also ignore the most glaring example of disqualification found at the heart of mainstream Christianity. If Jesus was god, he couldn't possibly be the messiah as those two things aren't even remotely synonymous in the OT. Jews do not worship the messiah as this would be a glaring violation of idolatry laws.

I could refer to more, but these are sufficient.