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/