Apologists have failed to debunk the usefulness of ECREE

We skeptics agree with Carl Sagan that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (i.e., ECREE).

Christian apologists come along and insist this is fallacious since it's just demanding miraculous proof for the very miracle claims skeptics presuppose are false.

Wrong.

We merely mean that the more a claim departs from the investigator's beliefs about how the world works, the greater quantity and quality of evidence will be required before trust in the claim can be considered rational.

In short, claims of walking on water require a greater quality and quantity of eyewitnesses or videos, than is required for claims that somebody walked to the store.  Only stupid people would say singular self-serving testimony suffice in both cases.

Some apologists also misconstrue the "extraordinary evidence" in ECREE to mean evidence whose form is something more wonderful than the usual stuff like pictures, video, eyewitness testimony, court documents, etc.

That is not the case.  "Extraordinary evidence" only means normative types or forms of evidence, whose authenticity, quality and quantity are greater than what we usually accept as sufficient for routine claims.  If the evidence consists of eyewitnesses, they need to survive cross-examination more clearly than as we'd require for less extraordinary claims.  If the evidence consists of photos, they need to be authenticated more stringently than as we'd normally do.  So "extraordinary evidence" merely means normative types of evidence that are possessed of a greater quality and quantity, than we normally produce to prove more mundane things like our residence address, or what we bought at the grocery store last week.

HOW much more extraordinary must the evidence be?  Again, depends on to what degree the claim departs from normative everyday experience.  The evidence of quality and quantity sufficient to prove that you won a $5 Million Lottery will likely not need to be nearly as strong as the evidence that you can levitate your body through mental concentration alone.

Again, when you produce a photo to prove you went fishing last year, most people wouldn't suspect you of lying unless other evidence indicated you were using the "gone fishing" story as an alibi to defeat a criminal prosecution...while a photo of you levitating while assuming the yoga position, will be justifiably viewed with extreme suspicion by all non-gullible people.  Doesn't matter if the photo is authentic and you really did levitate, the issue is not the truth, but whether you can demonstrate what happened to you, to some other person.  Sometimes the truth is so much stranger than fiction that you cannot blame people for being suspicious of your claims.

Maybe you DID win a secret billion-dollar lottery, the records of which have since disappeared, and its now in a bank account you aren't allowed to access for the next 10 years, in a name not associated with you...but can you blame the outsider who thinks your story is total bullshit?

What follows is my answer to Nick Peter's of Deeper Waters

------------------------

The claim revolves the use of ECREE, which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My problem with this is that the skeptical community has often used it as a conversation-stopper and that in many cases, what is considered as extraordinary is often unclear.

Ok, so I'll make it clear to you, that you might discover that when it isn't being abused, it remains a solid justification for disbelieving in miracle claims which fail the ECREE criteria.  See above.

For the second, I am in dialogue with one atheist now who I am trying to convince that nothing cannot cause something. For me, that is a highly highly highly extraordinary claim based on my beliefs regarding metaphysics.

I second that.  Nothing causing something is a logical impossibility, unfortunately, some dishonest atheists don't really mean "zero" in the sense of absolute nothingness when they say "nothing produced something".

Meanwhile, for him, the idea that God created the universe, is highly highly extraordinary, based on the holding of a naturalistic worldview.

It would also be extraordinary given that 'god' is an incoherent concept as it is used and believed in Christianity.

Question. Who needs to provide evidence for their view?

Answer:  anybody who makes a truth-claim, for "he who asserts, must prove" regardless of what position they take.

If you said “Both of you,” move to the head of the class.
 So at this point, I am not saying that I am opposed to evidence. My friend who wrote said that he is not convinced by people saying that they feel Jesus. Something similar can be found in many other religions. After all, Mormons feel the burning in the bosom and thus are convinced that the Book of Mormon is true, but those of us outside the Mormon church who have studied it and its beliefs, just don’t find that convincing.
 Of course, that doesn’t mean that subjective experiences play no part in determining what one believes, but they should not play the only part. Someone can speak about the evidences of God and of the resurrection and then also look at their changed life since becoming a Christian.

But since Christian "heretics" can also demonstrate their change in morality, theology and love after they converted to the "heresy", its probably better to leave subjective experience completely out of the debate. Subjective feelings and "changed life" constitute zero for purposes of demonstrating the truth of one's claim to another person.  If you aren't going to attach any significance to the burning in the heart of the Mormon and their changed life, I won't be attaching any significance to your personal feeling that you have the Holy Spirit and that you have a changed life.

That is entirely valid. (I would prefer them to start with the objective argument first however and have the effects from the subjective experience be a follow-up.)

My friend brings up the idea of someone claiming to have an interstellar spaceship and twenty people making a claim on a stack of Bibles that it is real. Now there are some questions I would have at this point. For instance, it would depend on who those twenty people are partially.

But generally, no, you wouldn't believe the claim of interstellar spacecraft if it was being made by the guy in the coffee-shop and the only evidence for it was his uncorroborated word.  The point is that despite your openness to miracles and things that conflict with our present view of reality, you STILL are initially skeptical of anything that conflicts with reality as it was established previously in your mind.  Skeptics of resurrection are doing nothing different.

If these are twenty people shown on a TV infomercial that I do not know, then I will not give it credibility.

So under your logic, when I see Christian testimony being given on Christian infomercials, I need not give it credibility.  Some would say your rationale here ends up justifying skeptics to deny that which the Holy Spirit really is impelling those Christians to say.

And under your logic, we can reject Keener's voluminous work on miracles too, since that's little different than an informercial, and as you say below, it is ok to reject testimony from those not part of your immediate social circle.  I don't know Keener from Adam (however, the failure of Christian apologists to seriously cite anything from his work as a miracle claim that passes standard tests of scrutiny, justifies my skepticism toward whatever miracle reports he provides).  Licona has mentioned Keener in the context of saying Licona doesn't necessarily deny that resurrections happen today, but seems obvious a guy like Licona would be strongly promoting any miracle claim of Keener, if Licona seriously believed it could pass standard tests of veracity.

If, however, these people are people like my wife, good friends, family, leaders of my church, I’ll start thinking “Maybe I should look into this.”

Ditto.  If one of my atheist friends say they saw some preacher in the Congo raise somebody from the dead, only THEN will I check it out.  The brightness of the coming of the Lord Jesus is truly frightful and blinding for a devil inspired deceiver like myself.

Now I could go and see this supposed ship someone has for sale then and I might think “I need to get my eyes examined. I go and get my eyes examined and I have a clean bill of health. I still see the spaceship. I think I must be hallucinating then, so I get a psychiatric evaluation and again, I’m given a clean bill of health. I still see the spaceship. I at that point have the salesman give me a ride and we travel throughout the solar system and come back. At this point, I must say that I am indeed a believer.

Understood.  So, under your logic, apparently, I can justifiably remain skeptical of miraculous and space-ship claims unless and until I personally experience them myself.  If it is rational to withhold belief until you take a ride in the UFO, it is equally rational to withhold belief until I personally witness a miracle and check for all possible evidence of fraud or mistake.   Can you  point to any miracle claims of Christians that survive YOUR proposed method of inspection?

I have no problem with this and based on the kind of claim that it is, that is the kind of evidence I seek. An important consideration to keep in mind is that we evaluate claims based on the kinds of claims that they are. Suppose you want to know if Jesus rose from the dead. The improper way to do that, as would be found at some skeptical web sites that want to say Jesus never even existed, would be to pray and ask Jesus to heal everyone in the world of every disease and if that doesn’t happen, well then history obviously must demonstrate that Jesus did not rise.

Agreed, this is not a responsible way to test the claim of Jesus being resurrected.

No. The way to evaluate the claim is to look at the historical evidence that we have. If you find it to be faulty, on what grounds?

Jesus lied about how soon he would effect his second-coming.

The most explicit accounts of Paul experiencing Jesus show he is not an eyewitness.

The identities of the gospel authors cannot be known with sufficient certainty to permit reasonable inquiry into their general credibility.

The gospel authors show willingness to modify history for the purpose of supporting theology.

The true form of Christianity disappeared from earth before the 5th century.

Generously granting apostolic authorship of the gospels (despite how easy it is to dispute this), there would be only 3 testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus which come down to us in first-hand form, the rest are second-hand, vision or worse.  Some would argue it is reasonable to require something more than 3 disputable eyewitnesses and their hearsay corroboration before one plunges into that hopeless bottomless chasm of trying to figure out which church is the right one.

It is more reasonable to explain Jesus' hiddenness from those he allegedly loves, as a case of his remaining dead, and less reasonable to suppose this hiddenness is because his ways are mysterious.

The Book of Acts contains strong indicators that the canonical gospels are lying about what Jesus really taught.

The virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke make it nearly perfectly certain that gospel authors had no problems inventing fictions about Jesus to promote their religion.

Are they historical grounds or philosophical grounds or some other grounds?

Historical.  Philosophical grounds would be the argument to atheism from the incoherence of religious language.

Suppose you accept the bedrock of Habermas and Licona for instance and say “I agree that Jesus was crucified, that the tomb was empty, that the apostles had experiences that they claimed to be that of the risen Christ, and that James and Paul, two people hostile to the message prior, became strong Christians.” Well and good. You then reply “But I don’t believe the resurrection happened.”
 You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I would then ask on what grounds do you dismiss it?

Jesus' own brothers did not believe his claims at least during the first year of his ministry, John 7:5.  It is more reasonable to explain this disbelief of those most intimately familiar with Jesus, under the theory that Jesus' miracles were fake, than on a theory that their disbelief was grounded in something faulty like misunderstanding, obstinate refusal to see reality, or sibling rivalry.

For instance, Stephen Patterson in a debate with Mike Licona has said that the reason he rejects the resurrection is that he is a modern man. He believes that by resurrection it does not mean that God raised Jesus from the dead physically. Miracles just do not happen. He has to explain the data another way, and indeed he does attempt to do so. Whether someone finds his explanation to be sound or not is up to them. Does his explanation best account for the data?
 Note that Patterson’s problem is on philosophical grounds.

That's not a problem, otherwise, we could reject God because of the stupidity of Turek and other apologists who foolishly try to prove God from the argument for objective morality.  Their philosophical blunder doesn't mean their main points are false.

His belief is that miracles cannot be historically verified if they even happen at all.

He is exactly right and so was Hume. And what Hume said has proven true up to the present:  there is no miraculous event that is testified to by such a good quantity and quality of eyewitnesses, that their deceiving would be more unlikely than the miracle they speak about.  For all miracles I can locate, they depend on fuzzy photos, unverified healings, unverified medical conditions, doctors who are not available, or involve witnesses who didn't see what the others say, etc.  And it wouldn't matter if Jesus really did rise from the dead, since truth is not the issue, but whether what you claim can be demonstrated true to another person.  Sometimes things happen in your life that are true, but which leave behind so little evidence that there's not enough to convince others of such truth.  That's why Patterson and Ehrman are constantly telling you that historiography is often not adequate to justify concluding that a miracle happened.  Probably does not derive from the "truth", but rather from the evidence.

At that point, one can go to philosophy and demonstrate that miracles are at least possible.

Not really.  You'd have to define miracle in a non-question-begging way, and you cannot do that when dealing with skeptics who deny miracles.  But if you seriously believe that "act of God" is the proper definition of miracle, then honesty requires that you use that definition despite your knowledge that it will get you exactly nowhere fast when dealing with an atheist.

While demonstrating them as actual is best, we can at least get to possible.
 The problem with ECREE at this point is just simply saying that in the face of contrary evidence that it just isn’t extraordinary enough without really explaining what is there. Now I am not saying that someone has to immediately give in to a lot of evidence. By all means, go out and study the information that you’ve been given for yourself and see if it’s valid and see if there are any valid criticisms of it.

You are here helping atheists feel good about taking their time to investigate, when according to your religion, if they die in a car wreck on the way to the library to check out your Savior James Patrick Holding's books, they will go straight to hell, no second chances.

Methinks you need to modify your instructions to atheists so that the way you instruct them with regard to further research, aligns more perfectly with your belief that they are always just a heartbeat from the gates of hell.  That might entail telling them to forego research and just hurry up and repent/believe, and that might be more consistent with the biblical message, but then you won't be taken seriously in this modern American culture where investigating things seems to be the god of the moment.

My friend also included in the message information on homeopathic medicine. I do not claim to be an authority on this so I will not act on one, but I do agree with him that if homeopathic medicine is valid, then we should certainly see some results in the laboratory, and I say the laboratory because this is in the area of science and therefore it is fitting to study it scientifically. (Since some atheists who seem to think that every truth claim can be tested by science) We can supposedly explain some recoveries by the placebo effect. Does that mean we close the door on research? I wouldn’t say that. However, there needs to be more than what can be explained by the placebo effect.

If you are a true Christian, you won't need anything more for healing sickness than what the bible gives you, James 5:14.  If James's assurance that the prayer of faith "shall" save the sick shouldn't be taken in an absolute sense, you open Pandora's Box:  I wonder how many other absolute-sounding statements in the NT likewise shouldn't be taken in an absolute sense?

I also like at the end that my friend stated that extraordinary evidence is really simple evidence that is probable given the truth claim. That is much better since he has given criteria. The atheist who is expecting that to believe Jesus rose from the dead, he has to have Jesus appear to him manifestly I do not believe will be satisfied, especially since God gave him a brain to use to study claims for himself.

False, you think God gave the 12 apostles brains to study claims for themselves, yet you think Jesus appeared bodily to them alive after he died.  Your God has a serious problem:  he doesn't do his "best" to save us, while yet pretending to be warning us of an unspeakably horrific eternity of suffering he'd rather spare us from.  When a person refuses to do their "best" to save somebody else from serious danger or harm, you have discovered the alleged savior's limit of love toward the endangered person.  But because this god is allegedly "eternal", then his love for sinners must be as well.

I'm sorry, Nick, but it really is that simple:  Your God does NOT do his "best", so he cannot possibly love children more than the parents who always do their "best" to save the child when she is in serious immediate horrific danger.  Nothing new here:  go read Deuteronomy 28:15-63, Isaiah 13 and Hosea 13, and discover for the first time in your life that if God DOES "love" humanity, that love is so utterly beyond anything remotely resembling human love, that you are a fool to try and "reason" about it with skeptics.

You can skip this whole problem by admitting that God's "love" for humanity is far more limited and stranger than as the vast majority of conservative evangelical scholars say.

J. Warner Wallace denies the biblically proper response to mass-killing

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

How Should Christians Respond to Mass Shootings and Similar Events? (Podcast)

Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:09 AM PST 

In this podcast, J. Warner Wallace is interviewed by Frank Turek on his CrossExamined Radio Show. They discuss recent shootings and terrorist attacks and talk about possible responses that Christians can offer. How can we respond to the problem of moral evil in general and issues related to violence and gun control?

There is no need, the bible makes it perfectly certain, at least for Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, that when crazy people go on a killing rampage, it is because they are being caused to do so by the biblical god who used to cause crazy people to beat children to death, rape women, and force pregnant women to endure abortion-by-sword.  And no amount of trifling "God-works-through-secondary-causes-so-he-can-cause-evil-without-being-morally-culpable" bullshit can help the apologist save face:

 Isaiah 13:13-18 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger. 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.

Hosea 13:15-16 15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
 16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Quite obviously, Christians who think God "would never" cause women to be raped and little kids to be "dashed in pieces", simply haven't read their bible.

No, J. Warner Wallace, they were not "heresies"

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of Jesus

Posted: 27 Nov 2017 01:00 AM PST

Over the centuries, believers have sometimes struggled to understand the nature of God and the great mystery of Jesus.

No doubt because God did his level best to make the theological truth clear to the human mind.

The Bible describes Jesus as having the nature and power of God, and the Gospel of John tells us that He existed before the universe began (He was, in fact, the creator of the universe).

It also tells us there were aspects of his personal will that were in conflict with the Father's will.  See Matthew 26:39.  He would have no occasion to say "not my will..." if in fact his will was always 100% aligned with the Father's will.  And you cannot limit his statement to merely his human nature because a) that is irrelevant, you do not believe Jesus could, solely in his human nature, desire things in conflict with the Father's will, and b) "nature" is by definition what a thing really is, so if Jesus really had two natures, Man and God, he could no speak apart from his divine nature, than YOU can speak apart from your human nature.  Natures cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, so having more than one nature will not bequeath any such ability.  So when Jesus says "not my will..." that is the second person of the Trinity or Logos saying that too.

At the same time, the Bible teaches Jesus was fully human and died on the cross. Efforts to reconcile the Divine and human nature of Jesus have resulted in a number of classic and historic misinterpretations:

Probably because the very notion of one person having both a divine and human nature is a self-contradiction, no matter how artfully dressed up in theologically deep gospel stories.

Adoptionism (2nd Century)
This heresy denies the pre-existence of Christ and therefore denies His Deity. It taught Jesus was simply a man who was tested by God and after passing the test was given supernatural powers and adopted as a son (this occurred at His baptism). Jesus was then rewarded for all He did (and for His perfect character) with His own resurrection and adoption into the Godhead.
 Leader(s) in the Heresy: Theodotus of Byzantium Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Pope Victor (190-198AD)

First, Acts 13:33 places God's begetting of Jesus at the resurrection, by using Psalm 2:7 as a proof-text, when in fact Psalm 2:7 was typically used in pre-Christian Judaism as an official designation of the human king:

 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' (Acts 13:33 NAU)

Second, while the canonical text of Luke 3:22 says

"and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, 

"You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (Lk. 3:22 NAU)

...an early and widely attested textual variant for Luke 3:22 strongly supports adoptionism:

"You are My beloved Son, this day have I begotten you." (

R.H. Stein was an evangelical inerrantist Christian scholar who wrote the commentary for Luke in the inerrancy-driven New American Commentary.  Notice how how he breezes by the textual problem with nearly zero commentary on the textual evidence for the adoptionist reading:

You are my Son, whom I love. It is unclear whether this is an allusion to Ps 2:7, although a few Western manuscripts (Codex Beza and the Itala) make this explicit by adding “this day I have begotten you.” The latter, however, is a scribal addition. The voice from heaven clearly reveals a unique relationship between Jesus and God and refers to Jesus’ past as well as present status with God. The voice did not confer upon Jesus a new status, so we should not see here some kind of adoptionist Christology. Rather, the voice confirmed what the readers read already in Luke 1:32–35 and 2:49, i.e., that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism.  In light of 20:13 “whom I love,” i.e., beloved , may mean only .  With you I am well pleased. This is a possible allusion to Isa 42:1.

Luke 3:22, Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;

The New American Commentary (Page 140). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Bruce Metzger's importance to the field of NT textual criticism cannot be underestimated, especially by Christians since he himself was a Christian.  What he has to say about the adoptionist textual variant for Luke 3:22 indicates the early and wide textual support for that reading is just a bit stronger than Stein had let on, supra:

3.22 Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsa {B}

The Western reading, “This day I have begotten thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2.7. The use of the third person (“This is…in whom …”) in a few witnesses is an obvious assimilation to the Matthean form of the saying (Mt 3.17).

A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed.

by Bruce M. Metzger, © 2002 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, pp. 112-113

Stein also doesn't tell the presumably inerrantist reader that Justin Martyr quotes Luke 3:22 as if he had no reason to think this adoptionist reading was a corruption:

but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee;’ [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: ‘Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.’”

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, end of ch. 88

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

That reading is taken as original in the following works of the early church fathers:

For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 103

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software. 

But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.

Clement, his 1^st Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 36,

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

For at the moment of the Lord’s baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, “Thou art My beloved Son, today have I begotten Thee.”

Clement of Alexandria, Instructor or “Miscellanies”, book 2, ch. 6

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, “Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee;” for it is to be remarked that He was declared to be His Son unconditionally, and without regard to time;

Methodius, Banquet of the 10 Virgins, Discourse 8 (Thekla), ch. 9

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by whom ye were known of God, by whom ye were sealed with the oil of gladness and the ointment of understanding, by whom ye were declared to be the children of light, by whom the Lord in your illumination testified by the imposition of the bishop’s hands, and sent out His sacred voice upon every one of you, saying, “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?” By thy bishop, O man, God adopts thee for His child. Acknowledge, O son, that right hand which was a mother to thee. Love him who, after God, is become a father to thee, and honor him.

Constitutions of Holy Apostles, Book 2, section 4, ch. XXXII.

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software. 

Docetism (2nd Century)
This heresy was coined from the Greek word, “dokesis” which means “to seem”. It taught Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not truly incarnate. Docetists viewed matter as inherently evil, and therefore rejected the idea God could actually appear in bodily form. By denying Jesus truly had a body, they also denied He suffered on the cross and rose from the dead. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Attributed to Gnostics and promoted by the Gospel of Peter
 Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus refuted it was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD

Docetism was something already known to the author of 1st John:

 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; (1 Jn. 4:2 NAU)

  7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 Jn. 1:7 NAU)

The Evangelical "Word Biblical Commentary" acknowledges that docetism could very well have been alive and well before the author of 2nd John wrote:

οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “not acknowledging Jesus Christ, incarnate.” The error of the heretics involved a failure to “acknowledge” (μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες) Jesus Christ incarnate (literally, “coming in flesh”). In 1 John the verb ὁμολογεῖν (“to acknowledge,” or “to confess”) is used of (orthodox) commitment to the Christian faith, or its opposite; and the test of this is a true “confession” (or otherwise) about the person of Jesus (cf. 1 John 2:23; 4:2, 3, 15). Here the elder may be claiming in the first place that the secessionist members of his congretation were not acknowledging the Incarnation as such (the orthodox creed being that Jesus had “come in the flesh”). Cf. Bonnard, “La chair,” 188–89, who thinks that ἐν σαρκί (“in flesh”) here and at 1 John 4:2 means the life and death of Jesus as a totality: a humanity characterized not only as mortal but also as crucified (cf. 1 John 5:6). Bonnard sees this as the basis of John’s appeal in 1 John 3:16 for self-sacrificial love. In such a case the elder would be describing those of his flock who were inclined to docetism, and who denied that the “flesh” of Jesus was real. Heretics of this kind may well have formed a majority in the Johannine community by this time (see above).

cf. confer, compare

2^nd John 7, Smalley, S. S. (2002). Vol. 51: Word Biblical Commentary : 1,2,3 John.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 328). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

that's a severe problem for Christians anyway:  How could any fool in the first century have taken up Christianity while seriously denying that Jesus had comes to earth in the flesh?

 If it was as obvious within 50 years after Jesus died that he had lived on earth just like any other human being, what could possibly motivate those who adopt the Christian faith, to insist that the part of about Jesus having been a real material flesh and blood human being, was wrong?

Were the people of the 1st century just brick-stupid?  Or is there a possibility that those 'heretics' had good reasons for insisting that Jesus didn't appear on earth in the flesh?

Apollinarianism (4th Century)
This heresy denied the true and complete humanity of Jesus, because it taught He did not have a human mind, but instead had a mind that was completely Divine. The heresy lessened the human nature of Jesus in order to reconcile the manner in which Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Appollinaris the Younger (bishop of Laodicea in Syria), 360AD
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Constantinople in 381AD

Such a denial was likely prompted by common sense, since even "orthodox" Christians admit in their various early creeds that the Son of God is utterly incomprehensible, and most Christians say the notion of Jesus having two natures at the same time is a "great mystery".  Yeah, and it's also a great 'mystery' how the Bermuda Triangle is a gateway to another dimension.  Fuck you.

Arianism (4th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus was a “creature” who was “begotten” of the Father. Only God the Father is “un-begotten”. In this view, only the Father is truly God; He was too pure and perfect to appear here on earth, so He created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the universe. God then adopted Jesus as a son (because, after all Jesus and God are not supposed to have the same nature in this view). Jesus was worshipped only because of His preeminence as the first creation. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Arius of Alexandria Egypt (250-336AD) Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Nicaea in 325AD. The Nicene Creed was written to respond to this heresy.

You forgot to mention Eusebius of Caesarea, the guy who authored the churche's first official history in the 4th century.  Both he and the other Eusebius of Nicomedia were closet-Arians.  Jerome said Eusebius was the "most open champion" of the Arian "heresy":

The blessed Cyprian takes Tertullian for his master, as his writings prove; yet, delighted as he is with the ability of this learned and zealous writer he does not join him in following Montanus and Maximilla. Apollinaris is the author of a most weighty book against Porphyry, and Eusebius has composed a fine history of the Church; yet of these the former has mutilated Christ’s incarnate humanity, while the latter is the most open champion of the Arian impiety. “Woe,” says Isaiah, “unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” We must not detract from the virtues of our opponents - if they have any praiseworthy qualities - but neither must we praise the defects of our friends.

Jerome, Letter 84  To Pammachius And Oceanus, ch. 2

Schaff, P. (2000). The Post-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). electronic ed.

Garland, TX: Galaxie Software

We have to wonder, therefore, whether Eusebius was carrying on an unspoken tradition, namely, going along with the orthodox view despite one's personal disagreement with it.

Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb. 

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Nestorius of Antioch (Bishop of Constantinople in 428AD)
 Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Ephesus in 431AD

Nestorianism could not possibly be false.  Mary was a normal sinful human being.  She did not give birth to the divine nature of Jesus.

Eutychianism [Monophysitism] (5th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus’ humanity was absorbed by His divinity. The heresy is Monophysite in nature, derived from the Greek words “mono” (“one”) and “physis” (“nature”). In essence, the heresy claimed Jesus had only one nature (something new and different than the Divine or human nature that God and humans have, respectively). Instead, this heresy taught a third unique nature was possessed by Jesus; a blend or mixture of the human and the Divine.
 Leader(s) in the Heresy: Eutyches of Constantinople (380 – 456AD)
 Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451AD. The Chalcedonian Creed addresses this heresy.

Saying a person has one nature makes far more logical sense, while saying a person has two natures constitutes absurdity and fairy tales.

Monothelitism (7th Century)
This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy (see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is derived from a Greek root that means “one will”. Monothelitism taught Jesus had two natures but only one will. Instead of having two cooperative wills (one Divine and one human), Jesus had one Divine-human “energia”.
 Leader(s) in the Heresy: Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (610 – 638AD)
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Third Council of Constantinople; the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 – 681AD)

Jesus must have had one will, since it makes no logical sense to have two "cooperative wills", unless the two wills are found respectively in two different persons.  And that Jesus had one will, not two, is clear from Matthew 26:39.  Once again, he would have no occasion to say "not my will..." if both of his wills were perfectly harmonious with the Father's will.

If you agree with your girlfriend that tonight you both should watch "Titanic", do you say "not my will but yours be done"?  No.  It is only if you personally don't wish to do that, but reluctantly consign yourself to making her happy, that you'd say such a thing.

These ancient heresies have been revisited by believers over the centuries and even persist into the modern era.

Sure is funny that today's heretics don't "misinterpret" modern evangelical church faith statements the way they "misinterpret" the bible.  Seems to me that sinners are smarter than God:  they found a way to speak about biblical theology in a way that guards far more successfully against misinterpretation, than the wording of the bible did.

So much for the "perspicuity of scripture" doctrine.

Unitarians, for example have embraced a view of Jesus very similar to the heretics of Arianism. The more we understand these classic heresies related to Jesus, the better prepared we will be to spot counterfeits when they re-emerge in our culture.

I'm sorry to hear that you have no more faith that the  Holy Spirit will enlighten Christians, than the math teacher thinks the Holy Spirit will teach math to the students.

Sure is funny that despite your belief that God "guides" your bible study, you speak and act as if the naturalistic method of knowledge-acquisition by reading books, is the SOLE method a Christian has at their disposal for learning the biblical truths you think they need to learn.

Sounds to me like your adding the influence or guidance of the Holy Spirit to bible study is utterly gratuitous..any god-mocking psychopath atheist could learn the same amount of material Christians do, by studying the bible just like they do.

Sure is funny that your Holy Spirit never "chooses" to educate Christians by directly beaming his lessons into their brains.  You may as well say the Holy Spirit was guiding the god-mocking atheist child as they grew in secular knowledge by reading books in school.

If you don't want the Holy Spirit's influence to be some utterly gratuitous concept wholly unnecessary to explain why Christians learn doctrines, perhaps you can show some situations where Christians became knowledgeable of bible doctrine without reading the bible or learning from other people?

Why do you assert the Holy Spirit has the ability to teach Christians without the need to go through some human teacher or book, if in fact you don't have any evidence that he ever did?  You may as well say Fido is capable of teaching bible doctrine to Christians without going through human teachers or books to do it.

Dream on.

My challenge to Matthew Flannagan

Over at Matthew Flannagan's blog, I posted the following.  The last section is my direct challenge to him to defend against my attacks on the Christian presuppositions that lay behind his opinions about biblical matters.
--------------------
Matt,

I have a two-part response:  a) you continue evading my most powerful rebuttal to you, and b) a request on how can I present you with my own scholarly rebuttals of your Christian beliefs in a way that doesn’t constitute me “changing the subject” or “evading the issue”.

First, you have consistently evaded responding to my most powerful rebuttal to you on moral objectivity, so let's try this again:

YOU initiated the subject of torturing babies solely for entertainment, as a thing objectively immoral.  You admit this now when you say “But I did offer an argument that moral judgements are objective”.

You certainly did.  And I have asked you, several times now, WHY you think torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral for all people in all circumstances and cultures.

You have evaded, several times now, answering that question.  For reasons unknown, you don't wish to reveal the basis upon which you judge torture of babies purely for entertainment, to be objectively immoral in all human situations.

So let’s try this again:  What standard of measure (or "moral yardstick") tells you that torturing babies solely for entertainment, is objectively immoral?

Your problem here is even worse now, with your recent refusal to ground your view in human consensus (i.e., when you said “…the fact there is a consensus of judgement on a particular issue does nothing to establish the judgement is correct, consensuses have been mistaken…The issue isn’t whether everyone thinks something, its why they think it and whether it’s correct.”)

You are exactly right, Matt.  So when I ask WHY you think torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral, I’m legitimately inquiring into the real issue.

So let’s try this again:  Now that you’ve admitted human consensus is NOT why you believe torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral, why DO you believe torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral?

The bible tells you so?
You were raised to believe it was immoral?
The Holy Spirit spoke to you heart and testified that such act is immoral?
All acts that are done solely for entertainment, are immoral?

Something else?  Please specify a) the source or yardstick and b) why you believe it constitutes an objective measuring tool for morality.

----------

Second, I would like to know how I might go about presenting you with my criticism of bible inerrancy and my criticism of the Genocide book you co-authored by Copan, and present such in a way that doesn’t constitute my “changing the subject” or “evading” an issue.

For example, several times now you have pointed out that I don’t solve my own atheist problems by complaining about the barbarity in Leviticus 21:9.

Ok, how WOULD I go about initiating my arguments to you on that subject, in a way that doesn’t constitute “changing the subject” or “evading the issue”?  Lev. 21:9 poses an arguable moral dilemma for many Christians, on its own, it doesn't have to be connected to some other issue to be the unexpected shocker that it apparently is to many Christians.

Or do you have a rule that you must be the one who initiates the issue, before you will be willing to dialogue about it?  I hope not, your discussions from 2010 indicate you have no problems responding to new arguments initiated by your critics.  Then again, that WAS 7 years ago.  Things might have changed, hence I seek clarification.

Where would it be proper to post such arguments of mine and expect a response from you?  Do you have a blog site or discussion website or maybe an email address where you allow skeptics to initiate such topics?

If not, would you be willing to respond to my arguments posted at some other blog or website?

Would you be willing to respond to my arguments if i post them at my own blog?

If so, let me know, and I’ll set things up in a manner to your liking, whether to allow or disallow third-party commentary, etc.

Here is a sample of the stuff I’d like to argue, which probably couldn’t be posted at anywhere at your blog here without running the risk of you calling it “changing the subject” or “evading the issue”:

1. It is both unreasonable and irrational to use bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic.  Without more, the mere fact that an interpretation of a bible verse would make it contradict something else in the bible, is insufficient to justify claiming such interpretation is false.

2. Some biblical authors advocated henotheism.

3. If the “dispossession-only” hypothesis you and Copan argue for, be true, then if the bible correctly describes how God went about actually “dispossessing” the Canaanites, this justifies viewing the bible-god as an even greater moral monster, than the god of the “kill’em all” hypothesis ever was.

4. The open-theist interpretation of Exodus 32:9-14 (i.e., that God makes mistakes and learns) does more justice to the grammar and context than the classical-theist interpretation set forth by conservative Christian scholars.  Hence, if this passage speaks correctly about God, God recognizes that sometimes his own initial reaction to a sin-problem is morally bad.

5. The open-theist interpretation of Genesis 6:6-7 (i.e., that God makes mistakes and learns) does more justice to the grammar and context than the classical-theist “anthropomorphism” interpretation set forth by conservative Christian scholars.  Hence, if this passage speaks correctly about God, God’s regretting one of his own prior actions logically falsifies the popular classical-theist belief that God is infinitely holy, good, righteous and wise.

6. The literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 28:30, which takes the verse to be saying God sometimes God causes men to rape women, cannot be falsified merely because the context admittedly contains hyperbolic statements.

7. The interpretation of Ezekiel 38 and 39, which says God sometimes forces people to sin against their wills, and then punishes them for doing what he forced them to do, does more justice to the grammar and context, than any interpretation which denies that God would ever force a person to sin.

8. The interpretation of Numbers 31:18 that says Moses was authorizing his army men to marry and then have sex with non-consenting prepubescent virgins, does more justice to the grammar, immediate context and historical context, than does the interpretation which says any marital sex that might have been authorized was also required to be delayed until the girls both reached puberty and consented to the marriage.

9. The interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 which asserts God is authorizing a man to rape a female war captive, does more justice to the grammar and context, than does the interpretation which says the woman’s consent in these circumstances was a mandatory condition of the marriage.

10. Interpreting the sex-denial statement 1st Kings 1:4 as the bible author’s attempt to deceive the reader about actual historical reality, does more justice to the historical context within which the text was written, than does the interpretation which says this sex-denial statement was 100% truthful.

11. Interpreting the bible’s statements endorsing corporeal punishment of children,  to inflict abuse to the point of leaving the children bruised, bleeding and scarred, does more justice to the grammar and context of those passages, than does the interpretation which denies same.

12. Generously assuming otherwise hotly contested apostolic authorship of the gospels, there are only 3 testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament, which come down to us today in first-hand form, Matthew, John and Paul.  Every other statement in the NT about Jesus rising from the dead is either second-hand, third-hand, based on visions, or something other than first-hand recall of eyewitness memory.

13. The stories in the NT that are most explicit about Paul’s experience of the resurrected Jesus, do not support classifying Paul as an “eyewitness” of the resurrected Jesus.  Now you’ve got only 2 NT resurrection testimonies that come down to us today in first-hand form, Matthew and John.

14. Interpreting Matthew 28:20 as a proof that apostle Paul was a heretic, does more justice to the grammar and context of Matthew’s gospel, than does the interpretation which leaves room for God to make Paul’s theological ramblings a part of the canonical gospel.

15. The biblical and historical information on who authored the gospel of Matthew is sufficiently plagued with uncertainties, ambiguities and falsehoods, that one’s remaining skeptical of Matthew’s authorship of canonical Greek Matthew, is more reasonable than asserting Matthew was the author.  Now you’ve got only one NT resurrection testimony that comes down to us today in first-hand form, John.

16. The biblical and historical information on who authored the gospel of John is sufficiently plagued with uncertainties, ambiguities and falsehoods that one’s remaining skeptical that John was the author of canonical Greek John, is more reasonable than asserting John was the author.  Now you’ve got ZERO NT resurrection testimonies that come down to us today in first-hand form.

17. Interpreting John 7:5 as a proof that Jesus’ miracles were fake, makes better sense out of the fact that his brothers didn’t initially believe his claims, than does the interpretation that says their disbelief was founded on misinformation, obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality, or some other unreasonable basis.

Sincerely,

Barry Jones

My email to Dr. Timothy McGrew

Dr. McGrew,

I have listened to your lectures and learned much.  Thanks for the work you do.

I was wondering whether you'd be willing to discuss with me, by blog or formal written debate, at any internet location of your choosing, any of the following propositions which I'm willing to defend, which are as follows:

1.       The argument to God from complexity is fatally flawed. 

2.       The first premise of Kalam is unscientific.

3.       If anything in the NT can be trusted as historically true, then it is more than likely that Jesus ‘miracles’ during his earthly ministry were not genuinely supernatural, but were more like those performed by Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff.

4.       Generously granting assumptions of traditional gospel authorship, there are no more the 3 testimonies in the NT to the resurrection of Jesus which have come down to us today in first-hand form; Matthew, John and Paul.

5.       Mark was the earliest published gospel.

6.       The author of Mark intended to end that gospel at 16:8, therefore, the earliest gospel strata on the resurrection of Jesus had lacked stories about his appearing to apostles.

7.       Mark’s silence on the virgin birth is best explained as either his not knowing Jesus was born of a virgin, or his believing such story was false; either conclusion does severe violence to the conservative Christian position that Jesus’ virgin birth was a literal fact of history.

8.       Peter’s knowledge of, but refusal to encourage, Mark’s gospel writing efforts, justify today’s unbelievers in dismissing Mark’s gospel as unworthy of serious attention.

9.       The problems surrounding Matthew’s identity are sufficiently extreme as to justify excluding the gospel of Matthew as disqualified from the realm of eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

10.        The author of canonical Greek Matthew borrowed most of Mark’s text.

11.        Unbelievers are rationally warranted to conclude that because eyewitnesses typically do not use second-hand sources to the extreme degree that Matthew used second-hand sources, the author of Matthew was not likely an eyewitness.

12.        Canonical Greek Matthew did not likely originate with apostle Matthew.

13.        The ambiguity and paucity of Papias’ statement about Matthew’s authorship is sufficiently extreme as to rationally justify the unbeliever in dismissing it wholesale as utterly incapable of justifying any degree of confidence in one’s conclusions about what he meant.

14.        Some of the 11 apostles did not believe Jesus rose from the dead even after the story says they saw him alive after he died.

15.        Luke is guilty of giving a false impression for his forthrightly admitting his reliance on eyewitnesses while remaining silent about his reliance on hearsay.

16.        The Muratorian Fragment says John’s initial idea on how to obtain gospel material was to get it by way of starvation-induced vision, something utterly incompatible with the conservative Christian notion that John drew mostly on his own memories of literal historical events.

17.        If John wrote a gospel, he didn’t intend to limit his Christ-sayings to those words that the historical Jesus actually spoke.

18.        John’s account of Jesus’ baptism justifies the belief that the author of that Gospel had no problems setting forth visionary material as if it was literal history.

19.        There is nothing in the NT to indicate that Paul physically saw a resurrected Jesus, hence, Paul doesn’t qualify as an “eye”witness to a resurrected Jesus.

20.        The original 11 apostles disagreed with Paul on what criteria must be fulfilled for a person to qualify as a legitimate apostle.

21.        The apostle Paul confessed his willingness to misrepresent his true theological convictions to others, where he thought doing so would convince people to join his cause.

22.        Barnabas’ disagreement with Paul about table fellowship, given that Barnabas was personally chosen by the Holy Spirit to assist in Pual’s ministry (Acts 13:2) justifies suspicion toward Paul’s claims to divine inspiration.

23.        The shockingly immoral situation in Paul’s Corinthian church justifies the suspicion that Paul was willing to characterize unbelievers as true Christians merely because they joined his cause.

24.        James, the leader of the Council of Jerusalem, was a Judaizer.

25.        Peter was a Judaizer.

26.        Some of Paul’s doctrines constituted a perversion of the gospel of Jesus.

27.        Paul’s infamous and near total apathy toward the teachings of the pre-Cross Jesus justify the suspicion that he was knowingly changing original Christianity away from what Jesus intended.

28.        Assuming Jesus rose from the dead, a Christian’s rejection of everything written by Paul would have no effect on their spiritual growth.

29.        The failure of the church to preserve into the present the preaching of most of the 500 alleged resurrection eyewitnesses, is less likely a case of circumstances beyond their control causing their history to disappear, and is better explained as the 500 witnesses being a fabrication, or their having experienced something less convincing than a real resurrected Jesus.

30.        Some of the apostles’ actions after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead, indicate that their transformation was nowhere near the “amazing” thing most Christian apologists say it was.

31.        The evidence supporting the notion of apostles being willing to die for their faith is sufficiently weak and ambiguous, as to reasonably justify the unbeliever in dismissing this popular apologetics argument.

32.        Luke’s dishonesty as a historian is amply demonstrated from Acts 15.

33.        The anger of the Jewish apostles at Peter for having eaten with a Gentile believer (Acts 11:1-3) justifies the suspicion that the parts of the gospels portraying Jesus as having a Gentile ministry, are fabrications.

34.        The Acts 11:18 church viewing Gentile salvation as some shocking unexpected theological development they’d never have guessed without Peter’s recent divinely-induced trance, justifies the suspicion that the parts of the gospels portraying Jesus as having a Gentile ministry, are fabrications.

35.        If the better explanation for these things in Acts 11 is that the apostles “just didn’t get it”, this legitimately impeaches their general credibility as resurrection witnesses.  If they could get obvious reality wrong despite three years of Jesus teaching it to them, why do most Christian apologists tout the reliability of the resurrection testimony as beyond serious dispute?

36.        The first-century church, by their own admission, was far more prone to creating and nurturing false rumors about the apostles, than conservative Christian scholars allow.

37.        The historical and other errors of the early church fathers legitimately impeach their general credibility for matters of apostolic succession and authorship.

38.        Under NT theology, the only time sex within adult-child marriages could be “sin” in the eyes of the bible-god, is a) where it is prohibited by secular law or b) threatens the life of the female.

39.        Deuteronomy 21:10-14 constitute God’s approval for a Hebrew soldier to obtain a wife by means including forcible rape.

40.        Genesis 6:6-7, Exodus 32:9-14, and Samuel 15:35 make no logical room for the possibility that God is perfect or infinitely good.

41.        Several passages in the bible portray God as forcing people to sin against their wills, and thus make no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

42.        Several passages in the bible portray God as causing men to rape women, thus leaving no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

43.        Several passages in the bible portray God as requiring his followers to kill children and infants, despite the availability of other less drastic measures to solve the problem being dealt with, and thus leave no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

44.        Several passages in the bible portray God as requiring his followers to burn children to death, and thus leave no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

45.        If those Christians who deem themselves spiritually alive perceive possible moral contradictions between the OT Yahweh and the NT Jesus, such Christians cannot deny the reasonableness of those they deem spiritually dead for thinking the perceived contradictions are real.

46.        Unbelievers have reasonable and rational justification, in light of the ceaseless debates among conservative Christian NT scholars, to conclude that the biblical data really are fatally ambiguous and incapable of allowing reasonably certain conclusions on anything about Jesus beyond his basic biological historical existence.

47.        It is irrational for those Christian NT scholars who deem themselves spiritually alive, and who yet disagree with each other on nearly everything the NT teaches, to say that those they deem spiritually dead,  are ‘without excuse’ for rejecting “the” gospel.

I look forward to dialogue with you.

Barry

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WKbx0dTy_4