That doesn't make sweeping generalizations resting on uncritical endorsement of the NT's framings of the Pharisees and "the Jews" less problematic.
So yeah, I too have issues with "They expected a warlord, and what they got instead was a pacifist. The prophecies clearly point to Jesus -- just not in the way expected by the Jews" (and Jesus' pacificism would be its own can of worm, as always when modern concepts as shoehorned in ancient contexts).
Not to mention "clearly misunderstanding the entire narrative of the Bible", that may be meant only for the present exchange, but can be taken as implying that Jews —there and now— don't agree that Jesus was the Messiah because they are "misunderstanding the entire narrative" of their own Scriptures, and this has a pretty dire history.
It may not be what the contributor meant —it's probably not—, but it doesn't make it okay.
I'll let someone more competent than I, whom you know through r/AskBibleScholars, elaborate on that.
Answering by pointing out the cultural context of the NT, with the interpretative traditions & diverse landscape of the 1st century CE, theological evolutions, etc, is one thing, and a welcome contextualization.
But the comment above was not.
Miller formulates it very well in Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy.
TL/DR: he argues for: * giving the "argument from prophecy" "an honorable discharge".
While the first Christians/Jesus followers —few and precarious— needed it for their survival, it is not needed, and harmful, in our current context.
I'll drop a few chosen quotes in a second, standalone comment, for the ones interested. But I highly recommend reading the book, or at least part 4 for the ones already well-versed in the cultural-historical background of the NT.