Quote
Why was it necessary for Jesus to speak from the cradle? Was being born of a virgin not miracle enough?? For me personally the annunciation by Angel Gabriel was proof enough of Jesus status. The only reason that Jesus appears to speak from the cradle.. Was to somehow clear His mother Mary of calumny of those who would accuse her of being unchaste. Which as Mary had God with her for protection it was not necessary for the baby Jesus to speak thus.
When it comes to the will of Allah , this sign is enough :

Quote
21:23 He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.
And I have the feeling there are appearant reasons for Christ peace upon him to speak in cradle other than being a miracle and clearing his mother's name . One is that the stubborn won't believe he was actually born of a virgin and will claim things or that he's not her child . As for other reasons , I let that to who knows better than I do . And what exactly do you mean by Jibreel annuciating Christ peace upon them ?

Quote
Ok! then I think Islam is wrong saying the people of the book corrupted their scriptures.. I find the verses from the Quran you claim backs up this view you have to ambiguous to be taken as cast iron proof of such a claim.
Fianlly !

Quote
I have asked various members at various times to bring forth the "proof" one member at least claimed to have at his fingertips.. Which was who corrupted the scripture? When was it done? And why was it thought to be necessary to change the word of God? The last point.. Given the promised punishments that would befall any who altered Gods word. No evidence was forth coming. How I don't feel it unreasonable to expect some kind of proof of this sort... If one only has otherwise ambiguity and supposition.
I am no expert when it comes to this subject to be honest . But what on Earth do these questions have to do with the matter ? Do we need to know who corrupted the Bible and when and how and why to know that it was ? If I see something altered from its origin , I don't need to know who did it to know that it's altered . That's to clear it up .

Secondly , would you take it as proof that there are different versions - not translations - of the Bible today and before in history ? Or that there are Christians who admit the original scriptures are lost ? These are points to go from . But as said , I'm no expert and thus I won't talk about something I don't know as if I do .

Quote
well.. That's a given. Why would you suppose otherwise? Prophets are just men.. They are tools of God. However.. I wonder if prophet Mohammed would acknowledge the miracles attributed to him today by muslims?
First , we don't attribute them to HIMSELF . Secondly , we're not the ones who "attribute" them , there are countless narrations about miracles happening at his time by the will of Allah . That's because Sunnah is the second source of revelation after Quran . Not to mention how accurate it is narrated to the digree of knowing every single man in the chain .

Quote
I have heard it said that the Quran was in fact the only miracle Prophet Mohammed claimed for himself. I'm not sure how it seen as miracle.. But you do so that is fine.
You heard wrong . Truely , the main miracle of the prophet peace upon him was the noble Quran . The main one for Moses was the staff turning into a snake and the hand shining . The main ones for Christ were the birth from a virgin and speaking in cradle . Peace upon them all . However , there are other miracles as well . Moses had the plagues which directed to Pharoh and his people and how they were lifted after him asking Allah . Christ had curing the ill and reviving the dead and others . Muhammad had the splitting of the moon , the crying log , satisfying large groups of people with little food , and others . Peace upon them all .

As for the noble Quran , it is a miracle in that no one can rival its eloquence . Narrations and history records tell about many who admitted it is unrivaled or some who tried to only to admit later that it is impossible . Romans and Persians had spies in the Arabian lands and would know on the spot if someone succeeded but they didn't . That's so no one makes the lame claim of "of course the barbaric Muslims would kill anyone who does" as if they had the power to do so - they didn't because no one did - when htey were oppressed in Makkah for 10 years !

Quote
Firstly, I cannot accept the "clay birds" can be attributed to Jesus at all. Due to the same reason as the "talking from the cradle".. It has dubious provenance and there is no evidence that it could be attributed to Jesus. Out of the hundreds of miracles Jesus performed during relatively short lifetime, the clay birds has absolutely no sound reasoning behind it, no lesson to be learnt, no benefit to anyone. It seems nothing more than a party trick.. And one thing the miracles of Lord Jesus were NOT.. Were party tricks. It just does not fit.
With all honesty , just because YOU don't see a "sound reason" behind them doesn't mean they're suspicious or whatever you call it . I could say the same about the Christian belief that he could turn water into wine or that he walked on water . But no .

Seiosuly though , you don't believe in creating birds from clay or speaking in cradle ?