I felt like starting one.

First thing, in 2/6.

Independent attestation. Let me state first that I do not know the methods of historical research, so I see this all for the first time.
I understand Craigs argument and agree with it in so far as the 'correct' formulation is more true. It is also useless, as it is not involved in evaluating real historical events. I am unsure wether this problem with the formulation negates the original point and truth in the Ehrman formulation. Presumably, it is still true that the probability of historical events actually having happened is more likely when they have been reported in several independant instances than having been reported only in one.

edit: all the stuff about the added value of OTHER criteria is completely beside the point.

In 3/6.

I do not see how the two gospels can count as two independent sources for the purpose of evaluating historical accuracy. Perhaps this is not what Craig intended to mean, but that is what I understood of it.

In 4/6.

Charming, I like this in Craig. Argumented, to the point, even funny. Wether his points regarding the 'son of man' part are accurate (using a translation where ehrman uses the oldest text maybe?) I dont know. Seems to comprehensively destroy that part of the Ehrman argument.

5/6

Really sad he skipped over the problem of miracles, id like to see his take on it. Anyone seen that somewhere? He has too many debates and talks to sift through them looking for it.

it doesnt matter who writes what. if its against christianity, it is wrong. the videos should just be him saying that over and over. thats all they ever amount to.

anything against christianity is wrong.

I am not sure what you mean by the bolded. Could you elaborate?

It is not besides the point. It is exactly the point. When comparing two different events the fact that event A does not pass independent attestation and event B does pass independent attestation does not mean that event B is more historically reliable event A.

Event A could very well pass more of the historical criteria than event B. So even though event A fails in comparison to Event B in regards to independent attestation, Event A would still be a more historical reliable event then Event B.

I think that was Craigs point.

I really liked this talk. In 5 Craig states he's lost all respect for Ehrman and I think it's reasonable to say so given that Ehrman has admitted in his scholarly writing much that he denies in his popular writing.

I thought Craig's demonstration of how Ehrman misuses historical analysis was dynamite - I don't know independently if Craig is right about the criteria, but if so, then Ehrman looks really bad and his popular works seem totally debunked.

As to the miracles issue, go to Craig's website - there is a transcript of his debate with Ehrman which goes into it in more detail - he also talks about it in his Defender's series, the resurrection podcasts. Also, if you search his site using Ehrman and/or Hume you will find more material. Keep in mind that when Craig says "probability calculus" he's talking about Bayes' Theorem - why he uses that phrase I don't know, but I think he uses the ideas correctly.

Well, comparing a single account with that single account+another independant one, saying the two are more realiable than the one is quite simply a trueism. It does not have anything to do with the historical reality, namely that you never compare a single event-account with that event-account and others. It makes no sense.
Saying that several independant accounts of an event make the event more likely to have been real than a single event-account is what the actual problem is. Ie. the problem is not comparing the SAME event, but comparing different events.

Im sorry, but it is besides the point. Independant attestation is only one of the criteria in the evaluation, all those other criteria are independantly important and add to the likelyness of a historical event to be real(or accurately portraied). He is discussing only THIS criteria, not the others. There is no problem here at all and saying this is true, but it is BESIDES the point of the argument being made (attacking his definition of this particular criterium).

It seems to me that we're saying the same thing btw. I just dont see how Ehrman is saying that all that isnt the case. Ie, I do not see how it is saying that all the other criteria are somehow not important suddenly.

Thanks, ill be sure to look it up next weekend, when I have more time.