₦airaland Forum

And you want me to answer the questions
1. What the passage means in its original language and context.
2. Why it specifically refers to Jesus.
3. Why Jesus uniquely fulfills it.
4. Most importantly, how its fulfillment proves divinity specifically, rather than Messiahship, kingship, prophethood, or divine appointment.

honesttalk21:
tenq, your terms are noted. But I want to make one thing clear before you proceed. I am not taking on an obligation to accompany you through an endless examination of arguments from your own Scripture. If you believe you have a prophecy that proves Jesus's divinity, you are free to present it and defend your interpretation. Whether I continue engaging with it is a separate matter.

honesttalk21:
My role in this discussion was never to supply your evidence, interpret your passages for you, or repeatedly answer every new objection after the underlying point has already been addressed. If you consider fulfilled prophecy your strongest evidence, then the burden is yours to establish what the passage actually says, whom it refers to, and why its fulfilment establishes divinity specifically.

honesttalk21:
I also want the earlier point on Adam may he be blessed left accurately on the record. You argued from a 40 years drying detail, but the hadith does not say that Adam's clay dried for forty years. The forty-year reference concerns the decree concerning Adam's creation. That was a misunderstanding of the hadith, not something contained in the Qur'an. So accusations of strawman or misunderstanding should be accompanied by the same care with the sources being interpreted.

honesttalk21:
The same principle applies to the other claims you've raised. Saying Allah and YHWH are different entities, asserting that Allah is necessarily spatially finite, or claiming that Qur'an 5:116 identifies the Nicene Trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary does not make those conclusions established merely by stating them. Each requires an argument from the actual texts and their context.

honesttalk21:
As for Qur'an 3:59, there is no contradiction in the verse saying Allah created Adam from dust and then saying Be, and he was. Allah's command is precisely what brings about what He wills; the existence of a created process does not somehow deprive the command of its efficacy. Your bricklayer analogy therefore does not establish the contradiction you claim.

honesttalk21:
And regarding your repeated question about why Allah made Jesus blessing on him extraordinary, the Islamic answer is already clear; extraordinary signs do not turn a servant and messenger into God. Allah gives signs to whom He wills, and the greatness of a prophet's signs establishes his prophetic mission not divinity or something else.

So I am not going to restart every branch of the discussion each time another objection is introduced. The points have been stated. If you wish to present your prophecy, that is your evidence to present; you do not need me to help construct it, and I am under no obligation to turn the discussion into another sprawling exchange.

At this point, the matter is between you and the evidence you claim establishes your conclusion. Examine it carefully, distinguish the text from interpretation, and be sure the conclusion actually follows from the premise.

doffman:
You will cry tire seh .

You are unbeliever nah and your destination is hell fire for life unless you repent . Shioor

doffman:
Just see how you gentle . I thought you will dispute my point ni ? Shioor .

You don’t know anything seh ! 🤣🤣


You don cast on every angles ; Shioor .

Just see this unbeliever that doesn’t understand his god and is here attacking Muslims in the forum
. No be juju be that 🤣

Lukgaf:
Imagine being trapped inside a cave.

No phone.
No one knows where you are.
No way to call for help.

Three men entered a cave, and suddenly a huge rock rolled down and blocked the entrance.

They tried to move it, but it would not budge.

Then one of them said, in essence:

“Let us call upon Allah by mentioning the good deeds we sincerely did for His sake”

The first man mentioned how he had always cared for his elderly parents. One night, he returned home late and found them asleep. He refused to give his children milk before his parents woke up. He stood there holding the milk, waiting for them to wake.

He said, “O Allah, if I did that seeking only Your pleasure, relieve us from this difficulty.”

The rock moved a little.

The second man mentioned how he once had the opportunity to commit a sinful act with a woman, but when she reminded him to fear Allah, he walked away from her despite having the opportunity.

He said, “O Allah, if I did that seeking only Your pleasure, relieve us from this difficulty.”

The rock moved further.

The third man mentioned how he had entrusted a worker's wages to him, invested the money, and when the worker later returned, he gave him everything that had grown from it rather than keeping it for himself.

He said, “O Allah, if I did that seeking only Your pleasure, relieve us from this difficulty.”

The rock moved completely.

And they walked out.

The Prophet ﷺ narrated this story to teach us something profound.

Notice something beautiful:

None of their deeds were performed for an audience.

No camera was recording them.

Nobody was applauding.

Nobody was posting “Alhamdulillah, I did this for Allah.”

They simply did good deeds when only Allah knew.

And when they found themselves in a situation where nobody could help them, they had something the world could not give them:

Sincere deeds between them and Allah.

So ask yourself today:

What good deed do you have that only Allah knows about?

Perhaps it is the charity nobody knows you gave.

The prayer you prayed when nobody was watching.

The sin you abandoned for Allah.

The parent you quietly cared for.

The person you helped without telling anyone.

The forgiveness you offered when you had every reason to be angry.

Do not underestimate these deeds.

You may forget them.

People may never know about them.

But Allah knows.

And perhaps one day, when you are facing a difficulty that no human being can solve, a sincere deed you almost forgot about may become a means through which Allah opens a door for you.

Do good deeds sincerely.

You never know when you will need them.

May Allah make our hidden deeds better than our public deeds, accept our sincere efforts, and make our good deeds a means of relief for us in this life and the Hereafter.

honesttalk21:
Then let's stop arguing about uniqueness.
Give us your strongest prophecy and establish four things:

1. What the passage means in its original language and context.
2. Why it specifically refers to Jesus.
3. Why Jesus uniquely fulfills it.
4. Most importantly, how its fulfillment proves divinity specifically, rather than Messiahship, kingship, prophethood, or divine appointment.

That fourth step is essential.

So let's reduce this entire discussion to one test:

Name the prophecy.

Then we examine the actual text, its original context, its earliest interpretation, and the logical conclusion it supports.

No labels. No speculation. No probably. No shifting definitions.

If fulfilled prophecy is genuinely your proof that Jesus is God, let the prophecy itself make the case.

honesttalk21:
tenq, You have now introduced several claims, but the central problems remain.

On naming: If God intended a religion, He would have named it is an invented rule. You are defining your tradition as merely a relationship and Islam as merely a religion because that makes your conclusion possible. But Islam means submission to God and absolutely includes a relationship with Him on His terms. No principled distinction has been demonstrated.

A name does not determine whether something is revelation. The substance of what God revealed does.

honesttalk21:
On only Israel are God's children your Exodus, Deuteronomy, Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah passages establish Israel's special covenantal status, but they do not prove that Gentiles could never enter a relationship with YHWH. Isaiah itself anticipates foreigners joining themselves to YHWH (Isaiah 49:6; 56:3–.

And individual relationship with God clearly predates Jesus as Moses speaks with God (Exodus 33:11), and David addresses God personally throughout the Psalms.

More importantly, being called God's child does not make someone God. Israel can be God's son; believers can be God's children. Therefore you still have to prove the separate proposition that Jesus being called God's Son entails that Jesus is Almighty God.

honesttalk21:
On Adam, Qur'an 3:59 says:
Indeed, the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.

Your objection about Adam's physical formation misses the point. The comparison is not claiming identical physical mechanisms. It is addressing the inference that an extraordinary origin establishes divine sonship.

And the 40 years drying argument is misplaced. Sahih Muslim 2652a–f does not say Adam's clay spent forty years drying. The forty years concern the decree mentioned in Adam's conversation with Moses, not a forty-year drying process.

So the Qur'anic principle remains untouched. Creation is not procreation.

honesttalk21:
And yes, the New Testament itself develops an Adam–Jesus parallel, with Paul calling Jesus the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) and contrasting Adam's disobedience with Christ's obedience (Romans 5:19).

But notice what that actually does; it demonstrates that Adam–Jesus comparisons do not automatically concern the mechanics of their origins. They concern theological roles and what each is said to accomplish.

If you want to use Paul's theology to establish Jesus's divinity, then establish that separately. It cannot simply be smuggled into Qur'an 3:59 as though the verse itself proves Pauline Christology.

honesttalk21:
On Allah and YHWH, they are completely different Gods is your conclusion, not your proof. Arabic-speaking Christians themselves call God Allah. If you mean Islamic and Nicene conceptions of God differ, yes—that is precisely the theological dispute.

Your spatial argument also assumes that descriptions of Allah's Throne, heavens and descent necessarily mean Allah is a finite being physically confined to a location. That does not follow.

honesttalk21:
And your description of the universe and heavenly realm literally existing inside YHWH is not simply the Nicene Creed; it requires its own theological defense. Even 1 Kings 8:27 says that the heaven of heavens cannot contain God.

honesttalk21:
On Qur'an 5:116,the Qur'an probably thought Mary was the third member of the Trinity is speculation. If your argument is that 5:116 addresses something other than Nicene Trinitarianism, then demonstrate that from the text and historical evidence. Don't replace the Qur'an's actual wording with what you think it probably meant.

And finally, you have clarified your actual case. You now say Jesus's uniqueness is not your proof of divinity; fulfilled prophecy is. Fine.

honesttalk21:
TenQ, thank you for not contesting the rest of the argument — particularly the biblical evidence for Moses’ and David’s personal relationship with God, and the central point that creation does not equal offspring. Those points still stand.

honesttalk21:
On your objection, though, check the ayah you are arguing against.

Qur’an 3:59 itself says:

“khalaqahu min turābin thumma qāla lahu kun fayakūn” —
“He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.”

So dust and “Be” are both already in the verse you are disputing. They are not additions I introduced.

honesttalk21:
Whatever additional details a hadith gives concerning the shaping or forming of Adam’s body do not erase either part of the Qur’anic statement. And on the forty-year point, let’s be precise: the well-known Sahih Muslim narration speaks of a matter being decreed forty years before Adam was created; that is not the same thing as saying Adam’s clay simply sat drying for forty years. If you have another specific narration in mind, cite it.

But even granting your broader description of Adam’s formation, your objection still doesn't touch the comparison in 3:59.

There is actually a striking parallel in Genesis.

Genesis 2:7 says that God formed man from the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So the basic sequence is:

material formation → divine impartation of life → living human being.

That is remarkably close to the distinction you are trying to make between the forming of Adam and the point at which he becomes alive.

The Qur’an's wording in 3:59 therefore does not require the absurd interpretation you are imposing on it — that if Allah says “Be,” absolutely no preceding or accompanying creative process can exist.

honesttalk21:
Your definition of “Be” as necessarily meaning words alone, with absolutely no process whatsoever is something you need to establish, not simply assume.

More importantly, you are still missing the actual theological point of the verse.

The Qur’an is not giving a chemistry or manufacturing manual for Adam in 3:59. It is answering the question of how Jesus could exist without a human father.

The comparison is:

Jesus — created by Allah’s command, without a human father.
Adam — created by Allah’s command, without a human father or mother.

The circumstances are not identical in every detail. The comparison does not require them to be.

The point is that absence of a human father does not logically entail divine sonship.

And here is where your argument becomes even more difficult from the biblical perspective.

According to Genesis, Adam is the beginning of the human family. Eve is explicitly called “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), and Jewish reference literature likewise understands Eve in this tradition as the first woman and mother of humanity.

Genesis then traces humanity through Adam's descendants. Genesis 5 begins specifically with “the book of the generations of Adam” and says Adam fathered Seth “in his own likeness, after his image.”

The Jewish tradition also emphasized Adam as the representative ancestor of humanity. The Mishnah's famous discussion of why a single human was created first connects Adam with the unity of mankind and the fact that humanity ultimately comes from one human origin. Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes this tradition as emphasizing the diversity of humanity arising from one original human type.

And the New Testament itself makes the same point even more explicitly. Acts 17:26 says that God made “from one man every nation of mankind.” The NET translation's note identifies that one man as Adam.

So your own biblical tradition gives us a very important framework:

one original human → humanity descends from that human → Jesus belongs to humanity.

Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes all the way back through the ancestral line to “Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In other words, the New Testament itself places Jesus within the Adamic human story rather than presenting him as a different order of creature.

honesttalk21:
That matters for the argument about Jesus' miraculous birth.

Jesus does not need to be biologically generated through an ordinary human father in order to be genuinely human. Adam himself demonstrates the more fundamental point: humanity ultimately exists because God creates it.

Adam had:

- no human father,
- no human mother,
- a miraculous creation by God.

Yet nobody argues from that fact that Adam must therefore be God Himself or God's biological offspring.

Jesus has:

- no human father,
- a human mother,
- a miraculous creation by God.

So why should the absence of Jesus' human father suddenly change the category from created human to divine offspring?

That conclusion requires another argument.

And this is precisely why Qur’an 3:59 is so powerful as a response to the sonship argument. It does not claim that Adam and Jesus were created by identical physical mechanisms. It makes a narrower comparison:

If miraculous origin makes Jesus divine, then Adam presents an even greater problem for that reasoning — because Adam's origin is more extraordinary still.

Adam was not born from a human mother and father at all.

Jesus was born from a human mother.

So if the argument is:

“Jesus had no human father, therefore he must be God's Son,”

then Adam creates the obvious counter-question:

“Adam had neither a human father nor a human mother. Why does that not make Adam God's Son even more obviously?”

The answer cannot simply be, “Because Adam was created differently.”

Because that concedes the very point:

the miraculous mechanism of creation does not itself establish divine sonship.

And Genesis 2:7 actually gives us a biblical precedent for the same basic creation pattern: God forms the human from dust and gives him life.

So when you say Jesus was uniquely created because Jibril breathed the spirit into Mary, you still have not established the crucial premise:

Why does a miraculous act of divine creation mean “offspring” rather than “created servant”?

Creation and begetting remain two different categories.

And there is one more point you should address.

You began by objecting that Jesus was not created from dust in the same way Adam was. But 3:59 never says Jesus was created from dust in the same physical manner as Adam.

It says:

“The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam.”

The comparison is about the theological principle, not a claim that every physical detail of their formation was identical.

So nothing here demonstrates that the Qur’an is false.

You have challenged additional hadith details concerning Adam's formation, but those details do not refute the actual wording or argument of Qur’an 3:59.

And the biblical and Jewish material actually makes the underlying comparison easier to understand:

Adam is the first human. Eve is the mother of all living. Humanity proceeds from that first human family. Jesus belongs to that same human story.

Therefore, an extraordinary mode of human creation does not, by itself, transform a human being into God's offspring.

That is the point you still need to establish rather than assume.

Indeed, the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was. (Qur’an 3:59)

honesttalk21:
TenQ, read what you just wrote carefully.
You said: “Was it necessary? NO.”
That is precisely the point I made. The absence of a formal religious name does not prove the absence of divine revelation, covenant, worship, or a genuine relationship with God. By your own admission, a relationship with God does not become invalid simply because it was not given an institutional label.
So if Moses, David, Solomon, or Jesus did not require a formal name for their religious commitment, then the absence of a later institutional label cannot be used as evidence against the revelation itself. The Qur’an goes further and explicitly identifies the religion as Islam (Qur’an 3:19, 5:3). Under your own principle, that is not a problem. It simply means this revelation explicitly identifies itself by name where earlier revelation may not have done so.

honesttalk21:
You also cannot have it both ways.
You say Jesus did not found a religion but instead founded a relationship with God. Yet you then demand that Moses, David, and Solomon produce the name of His religion. Why judge them by a category that you have just said was unnecessary in Jesus’ case?
You have effectively conceded that a relationship with God does not require a formal name. That undermines the argument you were trying to build from the absence of one.
And the idea that this personal relationship with God begins uniquely with Jesus is also not established simply by using relational language.
Moses is described as speaking with YHWH face to face, as a man speaks with his friend (Exodus 33:11). David speaks of God personally: The LORD is my shepherd (Psalm 23:1), and David is described as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). So there is already a deeply personal dimension to the relationship between God and His servants before Jesus.
Even the father/children terminology is not something that suddenly appears with Jesus. Israel is called God’s son: Israel is my son, even my firstborn (Exodus 4:22), and Deuteronomy says, You are the children of the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 14:1).
That does not mean Jesus cannot develop or deepen the concept of relationship with God. It means the vocabulary itself does not prove that something categorically unprecedented has appeared. If John 1:12–13 is being presented as evidence of a fundamentally different kind of sonship, then that difference has to be demonstrated from the text; it cannot simply be assumed because the Gospel uses the language of becoming children of God.

honesttalk21:
And notice where Jesus himself stands on the fundamental question of God’s identity. When asked about the greatest commandment, he affirms:
The Lord our God is one Lord. (Mark 12:29)
So the question remains what exactly did Jesus teach about God, worship, and humanity’s relationship to Him, and what part of that teaching is genuinely new rather than a development of concepts already present in the Hebrew Scriptures?

honesttalk21:
If you appeal to the virgin birth as proof of divine sonship, that still does not follow automatically.
The Qur’an directly addresses this argument:
Indeed, the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was. (Qur’an 3:59)
Adam had neither a father nor a mother, yet his extraordinary creation does not make him the son of God. Likewise, the Qur’an describes Jesus forming a bird from clay and breathing life into it, by Allah’s permission (3:49; 5:110).
And here is the logical problem; an extraordinary act of creation demonstrates divine power; it does not establish that the created being is God’s offspring or, following your own line of reasoning, Jesus’ offspring, is the created bird his offspring?. Creation and offspring are two entirely different categories.
If creating a bird from clay does not make that bird Jesus’ offspring, then why should the extraordinary manner of Jesus’ own creation automatically make Jesus God’s offspring? The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
So an extraordinary birth may demonstrate that something extraordinary happened, but extraordinary origin does not logically entail divine sonship. That conclusion requires an independent argument.
Finally, Iblis wanted a religion of his own is an assertion, not an argument. Calling someone Iblis does not establish anything about Jesus, revelation, or what Islam teaches. The claim has to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.

honesttalk21:
So the real question was never simply:
Where is the name? The real question is
What did the prophets teach about God, worship, revelation, and submission to Him? And is what you describe as something categorically new in Jesus actually established by his teaching, or is it being assumed from later interpretation? That is the issue

skywalker240:
I heard most drugs importers even go to the manufacturer's in Asia to tell them to produce inferior drugs

How wicked can they be, and you're surprised by the high rate of kidney, liver disease and cancer

sultaan:
The quoted response is your best bet.

You can look on YouTube for what needs to be done and watch your mechanic put a new thermostat or replace the one taken off
clean the vvt solenoid screen of oil sludge
look for crack in the air intake or manifold you will find it if you spray flammable aerosol around your air intake and listen for change in engine sound.
Get a better scanner to take a look at your Livestream of o2 sensor

honesttalk21:
I won't recycle or repeat the six answers again. What's left unestablished is yours, not mine.

You treat Christianity as the religion Jesus founded, then blame Allah's purpose for producing it. But where did Jesus name it Christianity, or tell followers to be called Christians? That name came from Antioch, after him, from outsiders. You've now asked what religion YHWH gave the Jews before Jesus, apply your own standard here: are you asking for a later label, or the actual covenant, law, and revelation given by the prophet himself? Those aren't the same question, and absence of a later label doesn't prove absence of prophetic revelation; not for Moses, not for Jesus, not for anyone.

honesttalk21:
So before asking why Allah's purpose backfired into Christianity, establish that the later system you call Christianity is what Jesus himself established and named. That's the part you haven't done.

StevenMarley:
Fish farmers in the house, Why are these two catfish different in color?
Educate some of us 😉

doffman:
Faith is not by clothes . It is by a faith in Allah .



Guy repent o . You will soon meet him o .

Jesusss can never help you becos he has denied you already .

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:116)On the Day of Judgment, God asks Jesus: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?" Jesus replies: "Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it."


Guys , your eyes go clear o .

doffman:
The real odenson just Dey disgracing himself online 🤣🤣

How can a son serve as a servant to which father again ?


No be u already confessed Jesus is your God ahaaaaa

Does your god be a son to himself ahaaaaq


Agabakoooooo ni Christianity seh

doffman:
Go sit down joor Shioor

Yes I am a slave or servant of God .

Isaiah 42:1: "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight.


Jesus is the Servant and We are the Served

Lobatan ; Gbam . You don finish seh ; tueh 🤣

Ekiti1:
In addition, a lot of sensors were unplugged and needs to be replugged back.
The car is seeing that the engine is cold hence its dumping fuel.
Lots of sensors starting from the radiator sensor (below the radiator and other ones are missing from your diagnosis.

BlindAngel:
My 2013 Camry is consuming excessive fuel, it's been more than a year since i bought it, and i have been suffering heavily ever since then, i spend nothing less than 100k a week on fuel alone, i don't drive long distance or drive much or have heavy foot.


The car is consuming fuel excessively, this car drink fuel like water, the car fuel consumption is something else and I'm so tired, it's a 2013 camry.


Firstly, i initially thought it was the wheel and tyres because the car came with 20 inch tyres and wheels, because i read here on nairaland that bigger tyres/wheels affect fuel consumption, so i bought and changed all 4 wheels and tyres, the car is a fuel guzzler, i have bought new catalyst for 305k, changed oxygen sensor, check for leaks, all 4 coils and all 4 spark plugs, yet the fuel consumption still remain the same. The car normally takes me 41km for 20 liters of fuel.

So i decide to scan the car today for codes and these are the codes below that I got from the scanner.

adenigga:
Source: https://dailypost.ng/2026/09/16/we-would-have-achieved-more-if-islamic-scholars-preached-to-bandits-gumi

franchasng:
In economics and trade, we have what is called the supply chain management and model. This ensures healthy trading and balanced economy.

Who makes up the supply chain?

1.) Manufacturer

2.) Distributor(s)

3.) Wholesalers

4.) Retailers

5.) Consumers

The manufacturer sources for raw materials and converts it into finished goods that consumers need.

Distributors help manufacturers to distribute their finished products to the market through wholesalers.

Wholesalers help distributors to reach the market through retail traders.

Retail traders help the wholesalers to sell faster and conveniently to the final consumers. This is how trading supply chain is designed to function to ensure a balanced economy and society.

In order words, you cannot be the manufacturer and still be the retailers selling directly to final consumers, that is a trading deficiency or abnormality that starves off other vital people on the supply chain and can lead to collapse of the economy of a society, that is why it is not encouraged by any working society and the only person that can stop or correct this mistake is the government through adequate trade laws and market policies to ensure balanced and healthy economy of its society.

So if we are to be real and honest to ourselves, citizens of countries that manufacture and produce what another country consumes like the Chinese, are not supposed to be allowed to operate retail trading shops in the countries they export their finished products to, it's a simple economics designed to keep national and global economy and trade balanced.

That is why in our secondary school economics, we were taught about supply chain, which flows from the manufacturer to the distributors to the wholesalers to the retailers to the consumers. These are all vital people on the supply chain that must not be discarded or allowed to be starved off through unhealthy trading activities.

You cannot be the manufacturer and still be the retailer, that is a trading policy abuse, it will squeeze out the other vital people on the supply chain and cause a skewed economy that will affect the society by making one person super rich and the rest extremely poor and dependent but our people are seeing this only from the tribal angle without seeing the bigger issue.

honesttalk21:
Recycling your opening post doesn't undo the answers already on record. Mercy to mankind, mercy in guidance toward truth, not an obligation to justify every means to your satisfaction. Sign for those who reflect, not proof for skeptics, ascension, virgin birth, and the clay bird are matters of revealed testimony, the same category your own resurrection accounts rest on. His will isn't undone by human misreading, misunderstanding, or conviction to be rebellious.
Q42:15: there is no argument between us and you. This ends here.

honesttalk21:
Remember even the name "Christian" wasn't given by Christ, it was coined by disbelieving critics in Antioch, a city of the empire that built a faith on a crucifixion that didn't actually occur, alas it's the foundation Paul holds as the point without which your actions are in vain, as though it were his to determine, not the Almighty's. A large following was never proof against eternal consequence, and forcing that binary onto Him won't change that.

doffman:
You are unbeliever nah and you have confirmed it that your destination is hell fire 🔥 straight unless u repent.

Pele guy

doffman:
Trash 🚮
Kininwi .

Even you self do not understand what you wrote.

Ani seh , your Christianity is eyibo and Paul religion nah .they founded it for you nah

doffman:
Now that you have been casted .

When are you dumping your fake religion ?

doffman:
All those you mentioned are not way of worships; they are necessity that does not violate religion . All culture and necessity are allowed unless forbidden by shariah. Come and learn 🤣

We have our way of life starting from eating, bathing, worshipping and etc .


Your religion does not have direction it was founded by Paul and propagated by those who enslave you ; white people .

Ani seh , who asked you to do white wedding ?

Who asked you to dance and clap in church nah
Shioor

Even Jesus doesn’t know anything about your fake religion. Lobatan

Christianity don cast seh .

honesttalk21:
TenQ, notice what you did with this post before we even get to the analogy. You quoted me saying the chain from unique signs to Christian misunderstanding to divine failure is unproven, and asking you to establish it. Then instead of establishing it, you pivoted to Nigeria and closed with "Allah knows best and shut up." You quoted the challenge and walked around it rather than answering it.

The analogy itself is built wrong for what actually happened. It only works if my answer had been a non-answer, a description standing in for a name. That's not this exchange. I named the reason, sign and mercy at 19:21, permission at 3:49 and 5:110, the Adam parallel at 3:59, and you rejected the reason because it wasn't the conclusion you wanted. Your version would need to read, "I asked who the president is, you gave me a name, and I said that's not the president I meant," for it to actually map onto what happened here.

That's also where your six-questions claim breaks down. What purpose does Islam give for Jesus' attributes is answered, directly, from the text. Why Allah chose these particular signs over others is a different question, an exhaustive-explanation demand, not a request for a purpose, and you keep sliding between the two and calling the first one empty when the second isn't supplied.

So here's what's still on you.

Prove Allah intended these signs to produce the later Christian doctrines, and that their emergence constitutes divine failure.

That's the premise the whole "Allah's purpose backfired" claim rests on, and quoting my challenge isn't the same as meeting it.

TenQ:
The problem with you both is that the very foundation of everything you have believed is based on Falsehoods.

One thing is that every lie requires several lies to sustain it. But God so good, lies are never ironclad: poke it with a little question, the lies begin to fragment.

Such is the dilemma you find yourself!


Note:
Every LIE is a mixture of TRUTH and Deliberate FALSEHOOD.

Unfortunately, you cannot reason by yourself because you have been told not to reason but accept everything they told you as fact.

OTHERWISE, TELL ME
1. Why did Allah call Jesus his Word and a Spirit from him ?
2. Why was Jesus born without a human father?
3. Why was Jesus the only co-creator of Life asides Allah?
4. Why is Jesus alive without death with Allah in Paradise?
5. Why was Jesus born from a Virgin?
6. Why is it that Jesus knows what people eat and hide in their house?



Was this a MISTAKE by Allah?
What was Allah trying to achieve?
Was Allah's purpose ACHIEVED or did this BACKFIRE?

honesttalk21:
TenQ, the record shows that you have been well answered, but you keep moving the goalposts because the answers given have not produced whatever conclusion you actually want.

You first presented six questions about Jesus. They were answered. You then said those were NOT the questions and shifted the demand from WHAT Islam teaches to WHY Allah chose these particular attributes. That was answered too with Qur’an 19:21 calls Jesus a sign and mercy; 3:49 and 5:110 describe his miracles as signs by Allah’s permission; 3:59 compares his extraordinary creation with Adam.

You may reject those answers, but rejection is not absence of an answer.

Your argument still requires an unproved chain connecting your prepositions that Allah gave Jesus unique signs then Christians later misunderstood them therefore Allah made a mistake or His purpose backfired. You have established none of those links. I have asked you to specifically address and show this but you haven't.

Likewise, your witness requirement is your own evidentiary standard, not proof that the Qur’an has no explanation. Permission and ability are distinct, but the Qur’an repeatedly attributes Jesus’ miracles to Allah’s permission. Spirit from Allah does not establish divinity either, since Allah also says He breathed of His Spirit into Adam (15:29; 32:9).

So the issue is no longer six unanswered questions. They have been addressed repeatedly. The issue is that you keep changing what counts as an acceptable answer. If you have a specific conclusion you are trying to establish, state it plainly and defend the missing premises instead of repeatedly declaring the answers inadequate.

dofman:
You mean your religion with 100 percent western ways of life 🤣🤣
Does Jesus wear coats and trouser and tie ?
Does Jesus did white weeding
Does Jesus dances and clap in the church . M
Shioor . Tuehhh 🤣

honesttalk21:
Realised your chronological mistake at trying to project your feeling unto me; tell me that was actually an apology. Obviously not as you continue unjustified arguments.

13. Now let's return to your actual WHY? question.
You repeatedly say you are not proving the divinity of Christ, only asking why Allah did this. Fine. Here is the Islamic answer. Allah made Jesus uniquely extraordinary as a sign. The Qur'an presents Jesus' extraordinary birth and miracles as signs of Allah's power and as part of his prophetic/Messianic mission. He honoured him as the Messiah, supported him with miracles, gave him revelation, and made his miraculous birth and mission signs of Allah's power. His uniqueness was not meaningless. His miracles were not meaningless. His birth was not meaningless. His status was not meaningless. But none of that requires the messenger himself to become the object of worship. The Qur'an gives Jesus' own message. Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is the straight path (3:51). Your Bible has him stating in confirmation the Lord God is one as the greatest commandment in Mark 12:29. The miracle points to the Lord. The messenger points to the Sender. The sign points to the One who gave the sign. The Qur'an does not claim that every individual feature of Jesus' uniqueness has a separately stated ultimate rationale; where it gives a purpose, we can state it, and where it does not, we should not invent one.

honesttalk21:
14. Your Job analogy actually establishes a more limited point than you think. It shows that a divine action can have a purpose without every aspect of that purpose being exhaustively disclosed to human beings. Job itself contains explanations for his suffering, but it does not provide Job with an exhaustive account of divine wisdom. Likewise, Romans 9:20-21 uses the potter-and-clay analogy to emphasize God's sovereignty rather than an obligation to explain every decision. So the Bible itself does not establish your proposed rule that if God does something, Scripture must disclose the complete underlying reason. Therefore, demanding an exhaustive explanation for every feature of Jesus' uniqueness is a standard you still have to justify. And the Qur'an does provide explanations where Allah chooses to provide them; sign and mercy, signs by Allah's permission, connection to revelation and guidance, and the ultimate message of tawhid. The absence of an exhaustive philosophical explanation for every detail does not constitute a contradiction.

honesttalk21:
15. Your Allah caused the problem that made half the world Christian premise is also unproven. Can say where the Jesus you base your why questions said his followers should be called Christians or the faith Christianity?
This is perhaps the most important issue. You say Allah caused the problem that made half the world Christian. But where does Islam say Allah caused Christianity as a false theological system? It doesn't. Where does the Qur'an say Allah intended Jesus' signs to produce the doctrine of Trinity or incarnation? It doesn't. Where does the Qur'an say Allah created an error and then discovered six centuries later that He needed Muhammad to repair His mistake? It doesn't.

You have constructed that causal chain yourself: Jesus was extraordinary, therefore Christianity developed, therefore Allah's action produced Christianity, therefore Allah's plan backfired, therefore Islam must explain why Allah made a mistake. But the first step does not establish the second. A historical sequence is not automatically a causal explanation. Six hundred years is a period of history, not evidence of divine incompetence.

Free will also matters here. Allah gave Jesus extraordinary signs, and He did not guarantee how every observer would respond to them. A sign is only a sign if people are free to interpret it correctly or incorrectly; that freedom is what makes faith a test rather than compulsion. 4:171 explicitly warns against the very error some later made; do not commit excess in your religion... The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah. That some communities exalted the sign instead of the One who sent it does not mean Allah's plan malfunctioned. It means the test was real, and not everyone passed it.

honesttalk21:
16. Why didn't Allah clarify it earlier?
Islam's answer is that Allah sent many prophets and revelations throughout history. Islam does not claim Muhammad pbuh came to introduce a God unrelated to Abraham, Moses or Jesus. It claims continuity. The Qur'an describes itself as confirming what came before while acting as a criterion over it. The Muslim claim is not that Allah abandoned humanity for six hundred years and then invented Islam. It is that Allah sent guidance repeatedly, human communities differed, and the final revelation came with Muhammad pbuh. You can reject that claim, but you cannot refute it simply by asking why Allah didn't do it differently. That is a question about the wisdom of God's chosen timeline, not a logical contradiction in the doctrine.

honesttalk21:
17. Your Islam copied Judaism and Christianity argument proves nothing by itself.

Islam openly claims continuity with the earlier prophets. So similarities are exactly what the Islamic worldview predicts. If a later revelation claims Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad all came from the same God, then finding Moses and Jesus in the Qur'an is not evidence of copying by itself. The real question is whether the Qur'an accurately preserves and corrects the original prophetic message, or merely borrows later religious traditions. That is a historical and theological question. It cannot be settled by pointing to similarity.

honesttalk21:
18. The Solomon accusation requires more than resemblance.

As already noted, the sources you named postdate the Qur'an by centuries. If you want to argue dependence in the other direction, or on some earlier common source, that's a claim you'd need to substantiate; not one you can assume.

honesttalk21:
19. About your witness argument. You say a miracle must have evidence witnessed by people. Agreed. But neither you nor I personally witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Moses, Balaam's donkey, or Solomon's extraordinary events. The historical question is whether testimony can transmit knowledge about events we did not personally observe. If your standard requires contemporary witnesses you can interrogate today, that standard eliminates most of ancient history, including the events Christian theology itself depends on. The real question is what evidence exists, how early it is, how independent it is, and what exactly it establishes.

honesttalk21:
20. Distinguishing what a miracle proves.
We must distinguish between evidence that Jesus performed a miracle and evidence that Jesus is God. A miracle can establish that God acted. It does not automatically establish that the human being through whom the miracle occurred is God. Balaam's donkey demonstrates this. God causes the donkey to speak, and the donkey does not become God. The miracle's occurrence and the agent's ontological identity are separate questions.

honesttalk21:
21. Consider Adam again
Adam had no father, no mother, direct creation by Allah, extraordinary honour, knowledge specially given by Allah, and Qur'anic language describing Allah breathing into him of His Spirit. Yet Adam is not Allah. So the question is not is Jesus different but what specific property possessed by Jesus necessarily establishes divinity, and where does Scripture demonstrate that it entails divine nature? That is the missing step.

honesttalk21:
22. Unique and greatest are not synonyms. A prophet can possess characteristics no other prophet possesses without being divine. Saying Muhammad pbuh has a unique final role does not require every other prophet to be identical to him. The Qur'an itself says those messengers, some of them We caused to exceed others (2:253). Uniqueness is compatible with prophethood; it is not a theological problem.

honesttalk21:
23. The accusation that Muslims are afraid to find the truth proves nothing.
That is not an argument, it is a psychological accusation. It does not establish whether Islam is true or false. The truth of a proposition is determined by evidence and argument, not speculation about the psychology of its followers.

honesttalk21:
24. Your adequate answer standard needs to be defined. If the only acceptable answer is one that concludes therefore Jesus is divine, you have inserted Christianity into the grading rubric rather than created a neutral test. The real test is whether Islam's explanation is coherent with the Qur'an and its own theology. It is. You may disagree with that theology, but you cannot call it no explanation.

honesttalk21:
25. The fundamental question put back to you. If you are genuinely asking only about purpose, Islam has answered it. If your argument is actually intended to establish Jesus' divinity, the burden of proof changes; you must demonstrate why each of these properties entails divine nature, and above all, where the explicit theological rule is that connects them to divine identity.

honesttalk21:
26. The Islamic position is not Jesus isn't special. It is almost the opposite. Islam gives Jesus an extraordinarily high position in every respect you've listed. The disagreement is over what those things mean. Christianity interprets them as evidence for divine identity. Islam interprets them as evidence of extraordinary prophethood and divine power. The real debate is not whether Jesus is extraordinary, but whether his extraordinary status logically entails that he is God. You have not yet demonstrated that.

honesttalk21:
27. Your argument ultimately rests on an unproved equation. Unique, miraculous, Word, Spirit, virgin birth, special knowledge, raised by Allah none of these result to divine is self-evident. Scripture gives counterexamples, Balaam's donkey speaks and is not divine; Solomon receives extraordinary knowledge and is not divine; Adam is created extraordinarily and described in connection with Allah's Spirit and is not divine. Supernatural activity and exalted language do not automatically establish divine ontology.

honesttalk21:
28. Returning to the six questions
Why was Jesus called a Word from Allah? Within Islam's doctrine of Allah's creative command and Jesus' special creation and mission (4:171).

honesttalk21:
Why a Spirit from Him? Extraordinary language describing his creation and honour, paralleled with Adam.

honesttalk21:
Why born without a father? An extraordinary sign of Allah's creative power (3:59).

honesttalk21:
Why the miracles? Signs by Allah's permission. Why the knowledge of hidden things? A sign granted by Allah.

honesttalk21:
Why was he raised? To honour and protect him from his enemies' plot. These are not zero answers. They are Islamic answers. You may reject them. But rejection is not refutation.

honesttalk21:
29. Your central accusation fails.
Islam is not denying Jesus' uniqueness. Islam is denying the theological inference you want to draw from it. Jesus is extraordinary, uniquely honoured, performs extraordinary signs, has an extraordinary birth, is Allah's Word and a Spirit from Him, is the Messiah; yes to all of it. None of these facts makes a created servant identical with the Creator. 3:59 gives the fundamental analogy; 3:49 and 5:110 give the key qualification, by Allah's permission; 3:51 gives the theological destination of his mission: worship Allah alone.

honesttalk21:
To be fair to your strongest point, your real objection isn't Jesus is extraordinary, therefore divine, you've said that yourself. It's why this particular combination of attributes, and isn't the explanation given too thin? That's a valid request for greater theological depth, and you're entitled to find sign, mercy, prophetic authentication insufficiently detailed for your purposes. But wanting a fuller explanation and proving Islam false are two different things. You haven't shown that the absence of an exhaustive, disclosed rationale constitutes evidence of divine error; you've shown only that you would prefer such a rationale to be given.

honesttalk21:
So I will turn your challenge around. You have demonstrated that Jesus is extraordinary, unique, performed extraordinary signs, and has a unique birth and prophetic status. Islam already agrees with all of it. The question you still have to answer is the one beneath all your questions: what is the necessary theological principle that makes Jesus' extraordinary created status proof that Jesus himself possesses the divine nature? Not why is Jesus unique, not did Jesus perform miracles, not is Jesus special — Islam says yes to all three.

The question is why extraordinary prophethood must become deity. Until that bridge is demonstrated, you have not exposed a contradiction in Islam. Jesus' greatness is not in dispute. The identity of the One who gave him that greatness is.

honesttalk21:
Contd....

5. Now your strongest point is saying Jesus creates, so I will make an explicit concession. You correctly pointed out that the word independently does not appear in 7:191 or 22:73. Fine. A Muslim should have no problem acknowledging that. There is no reason to distort the Qur'an. But I do not need that word. The Qur'an itself supplies the relevant distinction. Jesus says I will create for you from clay the form of a bird, then I will breathe into it and it will become a bird by Allah's permission. And I heal the blind and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allah's permission..." (3:49). And Allah repeats you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission..." (5:110). Why do you ignore or throw away the attached qualifying phrases? Isn't that an attempt at clever trickery?
So yes, Jesus performs the miracle. The Qur'an explicitly says so. But the Qur'an also explicitly says by Allah's permission and repeats that qualification. The Islamic position is not that Jesus never did anything extraordinary. It is that Jesus performed extraordinary signs by the permission and power granted to him by Allah. You cannot remove the qualification and then accuse Islam of denying the miracle. Perhaps you have a different scripture saying he did independently and ignore where Jesus says in the Bible in John 14:10 The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

6. And this is where your creation argument fails. You say the challenge was to create, and Jesus created. Yes. But your conclusion still doesn't follow. A created being can be the immediate agent of an extraordinary event without being the ultimate source of the power behind it. That principle isn't uniquely Islamic. Your own Bible provides an illustration.

honesttalk21:
7. Balaam's donkey destroys the simplistic miracle = deity principle
Numbers 22:28-30 records a donkey speaking to Balaam. That is an extraordinary supernatural event. Yet Christians do not conclude the donkey must be divine. Why not? Because you already understand the underlying theological principle; God can cause an extraordinary event through a created being without that created being becoming God.
So why does the same principle suddenly become impossible when discussing Jesus? If God causes a donkey to speak and the donkey is not God, then God granting a prophet an extraordinary miracle does not automatically make the prophet God. The miracle demonstrates divine power. It does not automatically establish the divine identity of the human instrument through whom the miracle occurs. You need an additional premise, and that premise has still not been demonstrated.

8. Solomon presents the same problem for your argument. You object to the Qur'anic account concerning Solomon. But let's be precise. 27:16 says And Solomon inherited David. He said, 'O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. Indeed, this is evident bounty. Your appeal to 1 Kings 4:33 does not refute that. 1 Kings 4:33 says Solomon spoke of trees, beasts, birds, creeping things and fish. That is not identical to saying Solomon was taught the language of birds. Whatever one makes of the exact wording in 27:16 versus 1 Kings 4:33, the theological point doesn't depend on it; an extraordinary God-given ability doesn't make its recipient divine"

honesttalk21:
9. But Jesus' miracles are greater. Perhaps. But that still doesn't establish your conclusion. Suppose I grant, for argument's sake, that Jesus performed miracles more numerous and more spectacular than Solomon, Moses, or anyone else. What have you established? You have established that Jesus possesses an extraordinary prophetic status and was granted extraordinary signs. You still have not established that Jesus possesses the divine essence. Quantity does not repair a missing logical premise. If one miracle does not logically establish deity, ten miracles do not automatically establish deity either. You need to explain why this particular class of miracles entails divine nature. That is exactly what you haven't demonstrated.

honesttalk21:
10. The virgin birth does not solve the problem either.
You say Jesus' virgin birth requires an explanation. Islam gives one. Allah says concerning Mary's pregnancy, it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. Let me ask you which is easier between insemination of a woman into conception followed by pregnancy then delivery and pulling a full grown woman out of a man that doesn't conceive And it is a matter [already] decreed (19:21). The Islamic position is not that we have no idea why this happened. The Qur'an gives a purpose for it to be a sign and mercy. You may say you don't think that explanation is sufficient. Fine. But that is different from saying Islam has no explanation. You are moving from disagreement with an explanation to denial that an explanation exists.

honesttalk21:
11. Jesus knowing what people ate and stored does not establish omniscience
The same problem applies to your sixth question. The Qur'an presents Jesus saying he informs people of what they eat and what they store in their houses. It explicitly places this among his signs. But you have transformed extraordinary knowledge granted by Allah into independent divine omniscience. Those are not equivalent propositions. A prophet can know something Allah reveals to him without becoming Allah. Prophets know things they could not know through ordinary human means because Allah reveals them. That makes them recipients of divine knowledge. It does not make them omniscient gods.
Did Joseph not know before hand that he will be in a honourable position compared to his siblings and parents as well as the coming seasons of drought and plenty before they came to pass. Or does foreknowledge only count as divine when it's Jesus?

honesttalk21:
12. His being raised by Allah does not establish divinity either.
You argue that Jesus' raising is another indication of his unique nature. Islam agrees it is extraordinary. But extraordinary divine favour does not equal divine identity. Allah can honour a servant without making that servant God. The Qur'an's teaching is that Allah raised Jesus to Himself and that his enemies did not accomplish what they intended. Where were Elijah and Enoch raised to, according to your own Bible? If you have a theology that meaningfully distinguishes their ascension from Jesus', share it convincingly. That demonstrates Allah's power and Jesus' special status. It does not logically establish that Jesus is the Creator. Again, you have the same missing premise.

honesttalk21:
Indeed Rashi, Targum Sheni, and Ecclesiastes Rabbah are all later than the Qur'an, some by centuries. Citing later sources as the Qur'an's origin, if anything, gets the timeline backwards , they'd need to borrow from an earlier common tradition, not the reverse. That's not evidence, it's chronology working against you.

To be continued....

honesttalk21:
TenQ, your latest response actually exposes the central weakness in your argument.

You keep presenting six questions as though the mere fact that Jesus is extraordinary creates a theological problem for Islam. It does not.
You have repeatedly insisted that you are not attempting to prove the divinity of Jesus. Fine. I will take you at your word. Though if you have any real sense of honesty not leaning to some cunning you should tell what really it is you want to establish or prove. Then let us deal with the question you say you are actually asking which is why did Allah make Jesus so unique, what was the purpose of that uniqueness, and does Christianity's later development demonstrate that Allah's purpose somehow backfired?
That is a legitimate theological question. But your conclusion still does not follow from the question. You have taken Jesus' extraordinary characteristics and added another premise haven't you? If Allah made Jesus extraordinarily unique, then Allah must have intended that uniqueness to establish something beyond prophethood, and because Christianity later became enormous, Allah's plan apparently failed. Isn't this what you say in your last post? That is the premise you still need to demonstrate. You have not demonstrated it. You have simply assumed it. Simply because:
1. Islam does not deny that Jesus is extraordinarily unique
Let's remove the strawman. The Qur'an does not portray Jesus as an ordinary prophet. It explicitly teaches that Jesus was born miraculously without a human father, is the Messiah particularly to the Israelites to whom he was sent, is a Word from Allah, is a spirit from Him, was supported by the Holy Spirit, performed extraordinary miracles, healed the blind and the leper, brought the dead to life, formed a bird from clay which became alive, knew things people ate and stored in their houses, and was raised by Allah. Do you agree are call Islam and the Qur'an as lying here?
So yes, Jesus is extraordinarily unique. Muslims have no reason to deny that. But here is the distinction you keep overlooking; uniqueness is a description. Divinity is a theological conclusion. You keep supplying the description and expecting the conclusion to follow automatically. It does not. Is this what your scripture obviously tells you?

honesttalk21:
2. Jesus' extraordinary creation does not establish that he is the Creator
You repeatedly emphasize that Jesus had no human father. Agreed. But why does that establish divinity? The Qur'an itself answers this through comparison to Adam. Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, 'Be,' and he was (3:59).
Notice what the verse is doing. It is not saying Jesus and Adam are identical in every respect. They obviously are not. Adam had neither father nor mother. Jesus had a mother but no biological father. The point is that neither mode of creation requires Jesus to be divine. Indeed, if absence of a human father were evidence of divinity, Adam would have an even stronger claim since Adam had neither father nor mother, yet Adam is plainly a created servant of Allah. Is there any other human created as Adam was. Can you find similarity in how Eve came into being form just one human as Jesus came from Mary?

This is precisely how classical Muslim exegetes understood 3:59. Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir both explain the comparison in terms of Allah's unrestricted creative power. If Jesus' creation without a father is used as evidence for divine sonship, Adam's creation without both father and mother would provide an even greater difficulty. So your statement that Jesus and Adam are fundamentally different does not answer the argument. Of course they are different. But different does not mean divine. A different mode of creation proves a different mode of creation. It does not prove divine nature.

honesttalk21:
3. Your Spirit from Him argument creates another problem. You repeatedly appeal to Jesus being described as a Spirit from Allah. But the Qur'an also uses extraordinarily exalted language concerning Adam saying when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of my [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration (15:29). The same description appears concerning Adam in 32:9 and 38:72. Did Allah breath into Mary in same manner or by angelic medium?
The point is theological. The Qur'an can describe a created human being in an extraordinary relationship to Allah's Spirit without that human being becoming divine. Adam is the obvious example. Therefore, if you argue that Jesus being called a Spirit from Him means Jesus must possess divine nature, you have to explain why the Qur'an's exalted Spirit-language concerning Adam does not produce the same conclusion. Saying Jesus and Adam are different doesn't solve it. The question is what is the theological rule that converts this language into divinity in Jesus' case? You have not established it. Do specifically well to address this should you choose to reply.

honesttalk21:
4. The same applies to Word from Allah.
You say Jesus is the Word from Allah. Yes. But the expression does not automatically mean what you want it to mean. Allah says the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him (4:171). Notice what the same verse immediately says, so believe in Allah and his messengers. And do not say, 'Three'; desist, it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.
That context matters. Jesus is the Messiah, a messenger of Allah, His Word directed to Mary, a soul from Him, and the conclusion is that Allah is One. The Qur'an does not say Jesus is the Word, therefore Jesus is God. That is a theological interpretation you are bringing to the phrase. You are entitled to argue for that interpretation, but you cannot present the conclusion as though the phrase itself logically entails it.
....to be continued