Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that the conversation has been directed towards a pitting of Paul's experience to Joseph Smith's. And it seems that we also are not allowed to allow any other evidence in (which seems like a dishonest tactic to me.) It's also a misrepresentation; no one, that I know of is basing Christianity on the appearance of Jesus to Paul. It explains Paul's sudden change in direction, and also fulfills the criteria for him to be an apostle, but you could remove this account, and you would still have Christianity. This is because Paul came after the Gospels had already been told, and churches already existed throughout the land. This is because the Apostles and disciples who had seen the resurrected Jesus founded Churches based on what they had seen. The evidence isn't just Paul's experience on the way to Damascus. But the experience of a number of people, some of which is recorded in the historical account of the Gospels.
It seems like poeple want to just compare the one account (of Paul) and base the arguments only on that because it is easier to knock down (in other words they are attacking a straw man).

In regards to Joseph Smith, his testimony is evidence, but it is not very well supported and there are good reasons to discount what he taught. J. Warner Wallace writes "I became a Christian at the same time I became a “Not Mormon”. By taking an investigative approach to the Christian and Mormon scripture (as I’ve described in Cold-Case Christianity), I was able to verify the truth claims of Christianity, even as I falsified the truth claims of Mormonism" Jim Wallace was a cold case homicide detective in L.A. county (and a very successful one at that). He was; as he describes himself an aggressive atheist until he began to investigate the accounts of the Gospels. He also has a number of Mormons in his family, and investigated that at the same time, that he was looking at Christianity.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/inv...six-steps/

[Minimalist]

Only an idiot jesus freak could ignore the fact that there are two different time periods claimed, before 4 BC and during or after 6 AD.

And they wonder why we laugh at their bullshit when they can't even get their story straight.

[Believer]: We have good reason to believe the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.

[Skeptic]: But we have completely conflicting and irreconcilable dates for Jesus' birth. Which one is correct?

[Believer]: Yes.

[Skeptic]: Wait. What?

[Believer]: We have good reason to believe the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.

Exactly.

[Mr.wizard]

The OP uses the definition for evidence, " Facts that support a conclusion", therefore testimony cannot be evidence until it is established as fact. Right?

The fact is that the testimony exists. Whether the claims of the testimony are facts is a whole different question not related to special pleading.

---

I'm pointing out that you defined evidence as facts that support a conclusion and you just acknowledged that claims of the testimony may not be fact, therefore by your own standards for evidence that you set up testimony would not count as evidence. Then you said in the OP that testimony will be considered evidence for religions, which i'm pretty sure is special pleading.

[Succubus]

It seems that the conversation has been directed towards a pitting of Paul's experience to Joseph Smith's.  And it seems that we also are not allowed to allow any other evidence in (which seems like a dishonest tactic to me.)  It's also a misrepresentation;  no one, that I know of is basing Christianity on the appearance of Jesus to Paul.  It explains Paul's sudden change in direction, and also fulfills the criteria for him to be an apostle, but you could remove this account, and you would still have Christianity.  This is because Paul came after the Gospels had already been told, and churches already existed throughout the land.  This is because the Apostles and disciples who had seen the resurrected Jesus founded Churches based on what they had seen.  The evidence isn't just Paul's experience on the way to Damascus.  But the experience of a number of people, some of which is recorded in the historical account of the Gospels.  
It seems like poeple want to just compare the one account (of Paul) and base the arguments only on that because it is easier to knock down (in other words they are attacking a straw man).

<much snipped for focus>

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/inv...six-steps/

My bold.
This is a seriously good read, although I seriously doubt you'll read it.
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus pdf

[Minimalist]

He has no concept of law.  Some line in an old fucking book is not "testimony."  It is an opinion written by some anonymous author and we have no way of investigating his claim.

True of all religious horseshit.

[vorlon13]

And amusingly, all the Mormons sightings of Jesus and God and angels doesn't do the rest of Christendom any good in proving their assertions Jesus and God etal are real as those Mormon versions of their deities are spewing an incorrect Message.

In fact, pointing out the Mormons are not seeing/hearing the 'real' version of God and Jesus (by their estimation) doesn't help them either as it raises the question of how do the rest of the folks know their versions are the 'right' ones either ??

Gotta watch that 'raising questions in the minds of our flock' thing, lest it bites 'em in the ass.

[KevinM1]

Are we still at "ancient, superstitious people believed in ancient superstitions, so it must be true?"

[Minimalist]

Do they ever get anywhere else?

[LadyForCamus]

1. The quantity of eyewitness testimony would not be a category difference. It would simply be justification to treat the two claims/information differently.

Why?  I'm still waiting for you to back this up rather than simply declare it so. Why is the fact that Christianity has a larger quantity of alleged eyewitness testimony, including other people's testimony about that alleged eyewitness testimony, a justification to treat it differently?

Now that you have supporting information, the circumstances between Joe and Jesus widens considerably.

What we have from religions in general is stories about unverifiable supernatural claims, and in the case of Chrisrianity, stories about those stories about unverifiable supernatural claims.  I fail to see how that distinguishes it as special or inherently different from rest.

Because the circumstances being considered are no longer similar, there can be no special pleading to believe one with more information and not the other.

So, you seem to be implying that because the Bible contains more testimony within its pages, this somehow makes the case for Christianity stronger than other religions. I mentioned as much in one of my previous posts and you chastised me for going off topic, but there you are asserting just that to Mathilda.  If you're suggesting that what distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that it's more likely to be true, then you're essentially arguing in big a circle. Especially considering we don't even agree on your terms of eyewitness testimony counting as evidence in the first place.

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them. 
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

So it's not actual evidence that convinces you.  Reasoning gymnastics is required.  I believe the supernatural claims in The Bible are true because the characters in the Bible say they are. Got it.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

Such as?

[vorlon13]

I'm picturing a sideshow barker exclaiming his church has the REAL Jesus, step right up, and everyone else is just making do with a yokel wearing a plastic Jesus mask.