The angel says to Mary that YHWH will give to Jesus the throne of his father David and that he will “reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). Presumably that carries the implication that Jesus’ flesh would not see corruption (in contrast to David), and that he would therefore reign in the immortality of resurrection life at the right hand of God in heaven (Acts 2:22-36). Apart from that, I think, the stories are quite narrowly focused on the birth of a king for restored Israel.
In the Synoptic narratives Jesus begins to teach that the Son of Man would suffer many things and be killed when they were in the region of Caesarea Philippi. Since his identification with Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is so integral to his self-understanding, I don’t myself see good reason not to view this as historical.
Did that mean his plans changed? I don’t know. Is it significant that even the owner of the vineyard thought that perhaps the wicked tenants would respect his son and not treat him as they had done the servants?