Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[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?