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).

<much snipped for focus>

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/inv...six-steps/

---

My bold.
This is a seriously good read, although I seriously doubt you'll read it.
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus pdf

Why do you doubt that I would read it? I like this article (actually a fan of most of what I have read from Kruger). It also seems to support what I have been saying on the matter, and my basic assessment of Ehrman and the issue.