Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

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?

1. The quantity of eyewitness testimony would not be a category difference. It would simply be justification to treat the two claims/information differently. So, while possible, no special pleading to dismiss one Joe's claim when on the other side you accept multiple attestations of the events for Christianity. This thread went on to start to discuss all (as compared to just eyewitness testimony) the information available on Christianity. This would includes Luke and Paul (not eyewitnesses) and the existing churches. This is information available that supports the eyewitness claims. Now that you have supporting information, the circumstances between Joe and Jesus widens considerably. 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. 

2. 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.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. To be clear, it is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact.  So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not. 

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.