What did Isa predict?


I had a gut feeling before that the standard interpretation of 61/6 :

61:6
وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَذَا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ
And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name is Ahmad, but when he came to them with clarifications they said: This is clear magic.Then thanks to a discussion on Quranology Discussions, I came to the following conclusions:
 1. The Quran doesnt accept the fatalistic nature of God. I.e. God doesnt move us around like chess pieces. The acts which add up to the person called Ahmad are millions in number, all of which are free choices. So what if they didnt make those choices.
2. Following 1’s reasoning, how do we know Ahmad would be messenger? It’s Ahmad’s choice, not God’s compulsion? ‎3. What is the point of telling these people because Ahmad will come to bil bayyinaat (with clarifications). Why not just say ‘bil quran’ or ‘bil kitab’?
4. 61/6’s of ‘min ba3di’ doesnt mean after in a time sense but rather in the sense of establishing the tawraat. Thats why injeel isnt mentioned here. Because Ahmad IS injeel. Have a look at 48/29, these are the states of tawraat and injeel.I grant my critics that I am recoursing to a lot of metaphor here but the traditional interpretation simply fails, giving me no choice but to look at this metaphorically.