Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

I never did get an answer from SteveII on this post, so I'll ask it again:
Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

My question was in regard to what actually counts as evidence that claims are true, as opposed to evidence of what people believe. If Joseph Smith's "evidence" doesn't convince you of Mormonism, why in the world does Saul of Tarsus' "evidence" convince you of the validity of Christian claims?

You really don't have a firm grasp on the facts of which you seem so confident. 

Regarding the general interpreting of evidence as to who Jesus might really be (the crux of Christianity)? There is all kinds of evidence to weigh.

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world. 
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing more than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. 
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have. If you think that having an alternate theory on one or two will make your case, it will not--these are a package deal. Address them all or or your objections are meaningless.  

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do). The point is, it is not as simple as saying "there is no evidence" There are layers upon layers of evidence that one person or another will find somewhere between uninteresting to compelling.

You didn't actually answer my questions. Why is one person's anecdotes/stories/hallucinations valid, but not another person's?


(edit to add: what you did do was engage in a lot of special pleading. The very subject of your OP. You have demonstrated well the special pleading necessary to be a christian)

(edit # 2 to add: and you appear to be under the impression that the gospels are written as eye witness accounts of Jesus and his life. You do realize that no one who ever met the guy ever wrote down anything about him, right? There are no contemporary accounts to validate any of the claims made of Yeshua from a Bethlehem or Nazareth, such as: born of a virgin, when he was supposedly born be that Dec 25th or some later date in the Spring, any of his miracles or events surrounding them such as the tombs of the saints emptying when he supposedly was resurrected and a bunch of dead people wandering through Jerusalem. No one ever wrote about those dead people in Jerusalem...not one person. No one. None. Zero. Nothing to independently validate any of those claims. But you still special plead for them?)