Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

Several things wrong here. It does not matter how you want to characterize the information we have. The information serves to make the circumstances between Christianity and Mormonism different so therefore no special pleading can occur...

...I will say it again in case you missed it above: Even if your mischaracterizations are true, there is no special pleading. The information, mode, quantity, timeframe and context are so different, by the definition of special pleading, there could not be any.

From your OP, but the bold is mine:

For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of eyewitness testimony that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of eyewitness testimony of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have as much eyewitness testimony or there only exists one piece of eyewitness testimony then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity?

What I am saying to you is this - 

1. In this is an assertion or implication that the amount of eyewitness testimony for any given religion somehow elevates it, or distinguishes it as categorically different from the others, and therefore, renders it exempt from charges of special pleading.  You have not demonstrated any reasoning or evidence for this position.  How does the number of people making the supernatural claim make your religion not comparable to others?

I mean, I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt about witness testimony being classified as evidence. I could just as easily argue that it doesn't count as evidence, and as such, you have none; same as every other religion's claims.

2. You have not demonstrated, nor do you or anyone else for that matter, have any way of demonstrating what, and how much of the NT is actual eyewitness testimony. How do you propose to "examine" alleged eyewitness testimony when you can't even confirm that it IS eyewitness testimony? You're chopping yourself off at the legs here.

Steve, answer me this: how much of the NT is written by legitimate eyewitnesses, and how did you verify this information to your own satisfaction? What evidence leads you to your answer?