Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[Mystic]

Let me preface by saying that in the early Christian thought, the traditional canon were not considered revealed texts (with perhaps the exception of the Apocalypse and parts of Genesis); but rather, testimonies to the revelation. God revealed Himself through historical events and his interactions with His people throughout the ages. I think this is very different from how Muslims (as I see it) revere the Koran as an actual revealed text, a direct transcription of God’s message.
If I am mistaken on this please correct me.

I hear different things about this from Christians. Some people believe the inspirations were like revelations, others more like inspirations but not so much like revelations. I'm not sure what the official stance is. But in my belief, Prophets come with clear proofs, the book (God's Name), and scriptures that reveal his book (God's Name), as well as a path, a code/law, and some of them get an extra quality of coming with guiding companionship role in the journey.
At the end, not everyone in the world always has access to scripture, but there were always effects of the sacred, that people can think, surely there is a Guide who God can guide me to in my journey. This specially if you believe the journey is of unseen road.

God may give paradoxical and seemingly arbitrary commands that upon deeper reflection prove to be wise. Maybe the Hijaab is one such admonition. At the same time, I think you are putting people in a double bind. People must accept some teachings they believe unwise, presumably based on their own rational evaluation. Yet people must reject teachings that reason suggests are unwise, if not actually evil. If people can determine the wisdom and value of certain behavior based on reason (the same reason they use to evaluate the truth of a text) then why do they need the book in the first place.

I think there is categories: 
That which we can see clearly to be evil or good.
That which we need insight from God to see good or evil.
That which we need guidance in the unseen to see the reality of to see if good or evil.
That which we can't determine no matter how much we try but yet God knows the law is best for us.

Acceptance and rejection are not the only options. Someone may not care to invest the time and effort to investigate it. For example, I do not fault anyone for not embracing Scholastic philosophy like I have but I feel that it is very wrong for them to disparage and condemn it without at least some understanding of it. I do not know enough about the Quran to condemn it any more than I could review a movie I never saw. Then there is the question of the degree to which it is accepted. Even in my ignorance, I can accept, based on your testimony and those of other Muslims I know, that the Quran may have much wisdom in it.

This is fair.

Where then does Jesus of Nazareth fit into this definition? Christians most certainly believe He fully conformed to the will of the Father and that for this reason must be obeyed. My guess is that you would dispute the history of Jesus’s death and resurrection. 

It's about there being conclusive proof from God that "this and this" is all the teachings of God. I don't believe any religion has that way once the Guide on earth goes into hiding except by you getting guide by the Guide of time, directly.  I believe Jesus once had a revelation in a form of a book, that was similarly beyond human capability. I believe such a book was lost over time.
I believe the Mahdi and Messiah Jesus returning, ancient revealed books will be brought to humanity, then we can see the true quality of all of God's revelations as they were revealed, were well beyond human and were written in eloquent way beyond human capability.

That puts the cart before the horse. Knowledge of the truth is the result of study. If you already know something is true because of overwhelming proof why investigate? Why would you need learn about something you already know?

Knowledge of the truth is the result of the study. But out of so many religions out there, why should I take a religion seriously that doesn't claim to have this overwhelming evidence and signs and proofs in it's favor. Sure I can study it, but it should have it's followers claiming there is a manifest miracle for it.

The point isn’t whether God could write the most eloquent and beautiful book ever written. He could. The first question is whether He actually has. The second question is whether the Quran is just such a book. I do not feel that awe and eloquence are sufficient to justify calling something Divine. Like many, I am awed by the music of Mozart and Bach. The beauty of their music seems beyond human capacity and yet they were just men. Maybe I would feel differently if I could read Arabic.

The point is if God can do miracles, but provides none, why? For example, in the past, if a Prophet came and people demanded a clear proof for his claim. Would God give him a miracle or leave him empty handed? The answer is a miracle.

Today we claim this religion is the religion of a Prophet of God that is true. Why does God leave us empty handed? No proof in form miracle today, why not when he can?
 

This raises the question of substance, yes? What is the nature of the content under consideration? What is the purpose of the revelation? Big questions, not enough time.

There is plenty of time.

Substance is important of course, and is vital aspect of it.