CIRA International trinity dilemma; Quranic massih same as Jewish messiah?

In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"

The Arabic massih stems from M-S-H meaning to swipe one surface opposite another either to clean or to mark. The meaning is basically the same for the Hebrew mashiach steming from M-S-CH which means to paint, smear or anoint, more generally to spread a liquid on a surface. That swiping process, when performed by a human in a religious context must be with the proper oil and ceremony as described in Ex30:22-33. The consequence to the recipient is that he becomes selected for a special, sacred purpose 1Sam10:1-2. 

The title however can sometimes be used symbolically even if not preceded by the ceremonial, when it is God Himself doing the "swiping" as is the case with the non-Jewish king Cyrus Isa45:1. Besides prophets, and a non Jew, the title is used for Jewish priests and kings 1Kings1:39,19:15-6,Lev4:3,Ex28:41,Isa61:1 or also for objects like the Jewish Temple or unleavened bread Ex40:9,Num6:15. The common denominator is, as already stated, the dedication for a specific purpose through marking. 

This means if someone is properly anointed as a messiah in the future he/it can be "a" legitimate messiah, not necessarily the one to appear at the end of times. That is why the HB never speaks of "the" messiah but of "a" messiah. The salvific figure to come at the end of times will combine both the quality of messiah, following the anointing ritual, as well as kingship, which is recognized through lineage and an unmistakable list of accomplishments laid out in the HB. In ignorance of the above, Christians speak of this end-time Jewish king, who in addition will be "a" messiah like the aforementioned animate and inanimate entities, as "the" messiah, in an attempt to create an aura of exclusivity surrounding a title amply used throughout the HB. In their zeal and because nowhere does the HB speak of that personality preceded by the definite article, they have gone as far as modifying Dan9:25 that does not have a definite article in front of "mashiach" except in Christian bibles. This example of textual corruption at the hands of Christians and Trinitarians more particularly to advance their faulty religious ideas, is far from being an isolated case.

The Quran however, as stated earlier uses "al massih" as one of Jesus' proper names only. No theological implication, whether from a Jewish or Christian perspective, is given the slightest consideration. The Quran adopts a neutral stance, just as anyone outside the fold of Christianity would refer to Jesus using a title that became equivalent to his proper name. The retrospective application of the Jewish messianic concepts and criteria unto the fictional Jesus of the NT is a gross distortion that turned the HB/NT into the mess it currently is. Right from the start, the gospel writers betray their forgery through contradicting genealogies that fail to meet even the most basic messianic criteria of lineage as listed in the HB. While to a Jew this effortlessly denies the title to Jesus, to Christians and their NT writers, this same criteria along with many others disputed by Jews, fit Jesus' description to perfection

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say". 

The verse concisely reflects the overall state of confusion and disunity among those claiming to adhere to the same Books. It does not specify the topics of disagreement as these are endless among Jews and Christians; ranging from the most fundamental like God's essence, to the trivial like the genealogical requirements of the end times king messiah, whose nature itself they disagree upon, whether it will be a man or a god-man.

Although linguistically as shown earlier, the Arabic term "al massih" may describe any entity, animate or inanimate, marked for a spiritual purpose, like prophethood as was Jesus' case, the fact the Quran only designates Jesus, among all prophets with that word, shows that the purpose isnt to apply the linguistic, or religious meaning to him, much less the fabricated apocalyptic one. This is concisely stated in 5:75, where the Quran explains that the appellations given to Jesus do not entail anything more than prophethood 

"The messiah, son of Mary, is nothing more than a messenger". 

It would be the same as saying "the king, Jerome, is nothing but a ruler". When the title of "king" is applied to Jerome, it entails nothing more than a ruler.

The Quran never depicts Jesus as identifying himself with that mythical Jewish figure, whose descriptions he does not fulfill anyway. Christians have always been puzzled by the Quran's depiction of Jesus, using a word which they see as loaded with theological implications yet at the same time being completely silent on those concepts. The reality is this omission as well as the various descriptions made of him and his mission throughout the Quran save Jesus from all false concepts and christologies that turned him into another false prophet and false messiah, and worse, from having claimed divinity.

The Quran states, as shown from the angelic announciation to Mary, that "al massih" was (and is still) the name by which others would call him. His enemies used it sarcastically when they claimed to have killed him, although they surely did not believe him to be their messiah. His followers, who eagerly awaited the rise of a messianic savior that would defeat the Romans applied it to him as other contemporary messianic movements did with their own leaders. Anyone, regardless of their religious background, uses it in reference to Jesus today as was the case early on in history. The word became first and foremost his name rather than a title, just as stated in the Quran.