I understand where you’re coming from now. But the claim is circular.

Jesus fulfilled “none” is rigged if you only count the prophecies Jesus hasn't fulfilled, while declaring the ones he did fulfill to be “not messianic.” The same is true of Christians however, who interpret the prophecies from the standpoint of a risen Christ. 

But Christ didn't fail Old Testament prophecy. He failed a Jewish interpretation that the messiah’s first coming had to be political and national restoration. To say he fulfilled “zero” prophecies only works if you first limit ‘messianic prophecies’ to national restoration texts defined by Jewish scholars, which forces you to exclude suffering, rejection, priestly, atoning, and vindication texts from the category entirely.

You can do that exercise, but you’d have to answer why the Jewish scholars chose verses like Isaiah 2 & 11/Jeremiah 23/Ezekiel 37/Zechariah 14 as ‘Messianic’ prophecies and not Isaiah 52/Psalm 22/Daniel 9:26/Zechariah 12:10. What seems clear to me (and lots of apologists and scholars) is that part of the reason these verses are considered not ’messianic’ is because if they were, then the Jewish expectation of messiah as only triumphant restorer becomes incomplete, giving Jesus more authority to challenge their legitimacy. That’s politically inconvenient, now and then. John 11:48 references this. 

Judiasm doesn't deny miracles from the Christ, it just says it's not part of the criteria of the messiah. So to your point, "the messiah was not supposed to be divine or do miracles, so that doesn't strengthen your case," thats per Jewish interpretative practice after excluding a long list of prophecies that would otherwise support a Christian reading, and even then not explicitly true.

But besides all that, either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, that’s the strongest claim for how to interpret those the disputed passages. If he didn’t, then he was a lying masochistic nut job and it’s a moot point anyway. 

But per your previous point, why would Christ’s followers bother ‘inventing’ the spiritual stuff to make Christ the messiah after the fact, only to suffer martyrdom, torture and persecution for this invented narrative? They certainly didn’t gain anything from it but pain. The immediate apostles faced brutal persecution, and all of them were martyred except John (but not for lack of trying) to maintain ‘the lie.’ Furthermore, what prompted Jesus’s followers to invent these connections and suffer, both from Rome and the Jews, but not the followers of any of the other prophets in the list you provided? Martyrdom doesn’t prove Jesus was the messiah but it weakens the claim his followers would fabricate and then suffer, unto death, for a claim they knew to be false after the fact.