Thoughts and Opinions about the Liar Paradox

[Binyawmene]

What is a Paradox? A paradox is a proposition which on the face of it seem self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance contain some common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well founded or essentially false. When speaking in context of God, a paradox usually accompanied with contradictory absurd assumptions. Every paradox appears to imply that something false is true, which is impossible, at least on a traditional understanding of logic. As if nothing impossible can occur, but paradoxes appear to be cases where something impossible is occurring. In that sense, paradoxes are intellectual and theoretical problems. To solve a paradox is to solve the problem, for example by pointing out which of the paradox’s premises are not true, or by explaining why its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

The rules for the Liar Paradox: A paradox is having a statement as both true and false, for example "All men are liars." But if we affirm the statement to be false statement, then it contradicts the statement as a true statement on its own merit. Or calling a statement false is apparently equivalent to calling its negation true "If the statement is false, then it's true." If we affirm a statement to be true statement on its own merit, then it contradicts its own claims that its false. Or calling a statement true is apparently equivalent to calling its negation false "If the statement is true, then its false." But if the statement IS NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE, then there was no true value.​

Some Scriptural References:

Titus 1:2 "...which God, who does not lie,"
Psalm 116:11 “Everyone is a liar.”
Romans 3:4. "Let God be true, and every human being a liar."
1 Peter 2:22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”​

Liar Paradox: "according to the human nature of Christ."

Premise 1: All men are liars.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man.
Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a liar.​

The word "all" appears contradictory to be both true and false.

a). If there is at least one man (Jesus Christ) who tells the truth, then "all men are liars" is a false statement. In a particular affirmative I-statement: Some S are P, the "S" (subject) "P" (predicate) are always undistributed. "Some men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are not distributed as liars.

b). On the other hand, If "all men are liars" is a truth statement, then Jesus Christ is also a liar for he is included in the "all." In a universal affirmative A-statement: All S are P, the "S" (subject) and "P" (predicate) are always distributed. "All men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are distributed as liars.​

How would you resolve this paradox?

 

[Binyawmene]

Epimenides Paradox. One of the oldest known paradoxes which is the "Liar Paradox." The liar paradox has many versions throughout its philosophical millenniums' history. Its been assumed that a Cretan prophet Epimenides (philosopher/poet, 600 BC) who first recorded: "All Cretans are liars" is credited with the original statement from the diversity of liar paradox versions. The statement was not suggesting that all Cretans are habitual or compulsive/pathological liars who was cursed by Medea, even though they do tell lies by having a sinful nature, but in context they are all lying about a particular issue of Zeus being mortal. Epimenides made a claim in reference to Crete's socially acceptable culture and religious attitudes that, "The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, and idle bellies" of their time era. Also, he is not referring to some particular group of religious Cretans. He is literally referring to the people as a whole which clearly implies the word "all." So, the phrase "All Cretans are liars" is in context to Zeus being mortal and that is the opinion of the Cretans people. Which that lie was a perpetual continuously to the point that it was a social integration, a cultural norm and daily customs.

In Epimenides writing he accused the Cretans of repeating a practice of what he thought was a lie. That Zeus was dead, mortal, and buried in Crete. Because he considered Zeus to be an immortal god and has resurrected from the dead. The Liar Paradox boils down to who was lying, either Epimenides or Cretans, but not both or you have a contradiction. But here is the catch, Epimenides was a Cretan too, so the phrase "All Cretans are liars," has included himself. The liar paradox may not have occurred to Epimenides while using the phrase to emphasize a point, except by the time it reaches Paul in the first century (historically speaking), Epimenides' statement has already taken on the form of one out of many liar paradoxes.

Titus 1:10-14 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete's own prophets has said it: "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons". This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.​

Paul quoted Greek philosophical poetry (other example: Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33). But in context the quote was about the denial of the immortality of Zeus, which also, was the lie of the Cretans since the claim has Zeus being mortal. This philosophical quote is mention twice in the New Testament. Here is the full quote of Epimenides:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica​

The other snip of the quote is reference in Acts 17:16-34, specifically in verse 28. I hold to the position that Scriptures interpret Scriptures. Paul was having a discussion or debate with Greek philosophers about the resurrection.

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. ..... When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council.​

Paul letter was an instruction to Titus who was left in Crete. And the philosophical poetry was understandable only to those with prior knowledge of the quoted reference and the current situation at hand. It would seem that Paul is aware of the Liar Paradox and Epimenedes who is making a universal affirmative claim "all of the Cretans people." But there is a distinction that Paul is only agreeing "This saying is true (vs. 13)," to a particular affirmative claim "some of the Cretans people" or "there are many rebellious people (vs, 10)." That's why he change the universal affirmative to a particular affirmative. Which he could be referring to "many" groups, but not "all" groups or to the whole people in general. But there was a particular group he is referencing "especially those of the circumcision group "(vs. 10) who was disrupting the households. That means Titus must have been informed in both ancient Greek philosophical poetry and classical logical paradoxes with syllogisms. So, its up to Titus and the first century audience to make the direct connection of what was happening in the disruption of the whole households in Crete by rebuking them sharply.

Titus 1:10-14 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete's own prophets has said it: "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons". This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.​

Was Paul aware of the Liar Paradox?

 

[Binyawmene]

I guess no one wanted to put on their thinking caps and apply critical thinking skills.

Liar Paradox: "according to the human nature of Christ."

Premise 1: All men are liars.​

Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man.​

Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a liar.
​

Context is key to solving the Liar Paradox. Let's apply a basic logical analytical critique and assessment of the Liar Paradox Syllogism. In the Bible, there are two verses that the phrase "all men are liars" is derived (Psalm 116:11 “Everyone is a liar" and Romans 3:4 "every human being a liar"). Both of those verses are two different contexts and in premise 1 is creating a new third-kind of contextual meaning. So, in Premise 3, we have 'Jesus Christ is a liar' which doesn't fit into the context of premise 1 'All men are liars'. Also, it must be pointed out that premise 1 is a fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. This is an interpretive error that assigns a contextual meaning of a word and phrase from a specific context, and then emerging that meaning into all Biblical contexts that has the same word or phrase. Each passages have different contextual meaning for the same word and phrase. It doesn't always carry the same meaning in each passage of scriptures. With that in mind it encouraged to pay attention to all the passages that uses a particular word and phrase, and all the different contexts in which it is used. Because a word and phrase have no meaning apart from its context. Nor would a word and phrase be applied to a particular situation or circumstance if it's taken out of its original context. After all, you don't want to superimpose meaning into a text or commit eisegesis and depart from original author intended contextual meaning.

The first contextual meaning is in Psalms 116:11, the Psalmist used a hyperbolic language that exaggerates or overstates the truth so to speak. For example, when we say, “Everything has gone wrong today,” or “No one cares that I’m sick,” we are more than likely exaggerate the truth. The statement that “all men are liars” in verse 11 follows that pattern. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who abandon him during a time of trouble. He felt emotionally of being forsaken in his time of distress. And those people couldn't be trusted, their promises proved to be unreliable, and their words are nothing but lies. The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is not one of those particular people who is unfaithful, and he didn't abandon that person during the time of trouble.

The second contextual meaning is in Romans 3:4, Paul imagined someone in verse 3 "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?" He used an emphatic phrase that is showing emphasis and expressing himself forcibly and clearly. For example, when we say, "no way," or "that's not true," the English translations use the phrases such as "God forbid," "Not at all," and "By no means!" This exclamation is repeated many times in Romans. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who are unfaithful while God always remain faithful to them. In other words, God's faithfulness does not depend on men faithfulness. Because God's faithfulness is always remaining the same unchangeably in men faithfulness and unfaithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13). The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is always faithful to God the Father and the Father has always been well pleased with him. ​

Therefore, Liar Paradox Syllogism is a non sequitur since premise 3 is a false statement which doesn't logically follow from premise 1 as another false statement. I've demonstrated this by the different types of contextual meanings. There was never a paradox and a contradiction.

 

[Arial]

What is a Paradox? A paradox is a proposition which on the face of it seem self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance contain some common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well founded or essentially false. When speaking in context of God, a paradox usually accompanied with contradictory absurd assumptions. Every paradox appears to imply that something false is true, which is impossible, at least on a traditional understanding of logic. As if nothing impossible can occur, but paradoxes appear to be cases where something impossible is occurring. In that sense, paradoxes are intellectual and theoretical problems. To solve a paradox is to solve the problem, for example by pointing out which of the paradox’s premises are not true, or by explaining why its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

The rules for the Liar Paradox: A paradox is having a statement as both true and false, for example "All men are liars." But if we affirm the statement to be false statement, then it contradicts the statement as a true statement on its own merit. Or calling a statement false is apparently equivalent to calling its negation true "If the statement is false, then it's true." If we affirm a statement to be true statement on its own merit, then it contradicts its own claims that its false. Or calling a statement true is apparently equivalent to calling its negation false "If the statement is true, then its false." But if the statement IS NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE, then there was no true value.​

Some Scriptural References:

Titus 1:2 "...which God, who does not lie,"​

Psalm 116:11 “Everyone is a liar.”​

Romans 3:4. "Let God be true, and every human being a liar."​

1 Peter 2:22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”​

Liar Paradox: "according to the human nature of Christ."

Premise 1: All men are liars.​

Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man.​

Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a liar.​

The word "all" appears contradictory to be both true and false.

a). If there is at least one man (Jesus Christ) who tells the truth, then "all men are liars" is a false statement. In a particular affirmative I-statement: Some S are P, the "S" (subject) "P" (predicate) are always undistributed. "Some men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are not distributed as liars.​

​

b). On the other hand, If "all men are liars" is a truth statement, then Jesus Christ is also a liar for he is included in the "all." In a universal affirmative A-statement: All S are P, the "S" (subject) and "P" (predicate) are always distributed. "All men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are distributed as liars.​

How would you resolve this paradox?

Within the Bible, all paradoxes are solved within the Bible. What is clear on a subject in one place, clarifies either the positive or the negative of the one that is not clear. In most cases we know what the apparent contradiction cannot mean, because of its opposite being made clear in other places, and truthfully, by the whole counsel of God. The resolution is found within the context. Historically, who is speaking/writing to who, why, for what purpose.The who, what, when, where and why of what is being said, all under the umbrella of the self revelation of God, Christ, Redemption.

In the given illustration, Premise 1. all created men who are in Adam are liars.
Premise 2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came as a man, to substitute for men, begotten, not created, not in Adam.

Premise 3. Jesus Christ is not a liar as the Bible says He was without sin, and if He had sin, even in His nature, He could not be a substitute for the sinner. God cannot lie as deceit is not any part of His being and Jesus is God with us.

P.S. I made my response after reading the OP and before reading what followed, and still have not read it. I will wait to do so until you "grade my response."

 

[Binyawmene]

Within the Bible, all paradoxes are solved within the Bible.

Amen.

What is clear on a subject in one place, clarifies either the positive or the negative of the one that is not clear. In most cases we know what the apparent contradiction cannot mean, because of its opposite being made clear in other places, and truthfully, by the whole counsel of God. The resolution is found within the context. Historically, who is speaking/writing to who, why, for what purpose.The who, what, when, where and why of what is being said, all under the umbrella of the self revelation of God, Christ, Redemption.

Agreed.

In the given illustration, Premise 1. all created men who are in Adam are liars.
Premise 2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came as a man, to substitute for men, begotten, not created, not in Adam.

Premise 3. Jesus Christ is not a liar as the Bible says He was without sin, and if He had sin, even in His nature, He could not be a substitute for the sinner. God cannot lie as deceit is not any part of His being and Jesus is God with us.

In the Bible, there are two verses that the phrase "all men are liars" is derived (Psalm 116:11 “Everyone is a liar" and Romans 3:4 "every human being a liar"). Both of those verses are two different contexts in reference to a limited application for "all" and in premise 1 is creating a new third-kind of contextual meaning in reference to a broader application for "all". So, in Premise 3, we have 'Jesus Christ is a liar' which doesn't fit into the context of premise 1 'All men are liars'.

Also, it must be pointed out that premise 1 is a fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. This is an interpretive error that assigns a contextual meaning of a word and phrase from a specific context, and then emerging that meaning into all Biblical contexts that has the same word or phrase. Each passages have different contextual meaning for the same word and phrase. It doesn't always carry the same meaning in each passage of scriptures. With that in mind it encouraged to pay attention to all the passages that uses a particular word and phrase, and all the different contexts in which it is used. Because a word and phrase have no meaning apart from its context. Nor would a word and phrase be applied to a particular situation or circumstance if it's taken out of its original context. After all, you don't want to superimpose meaning into a text or commit eisegesis and depart from original author intended contextual meaning.

The first contextual meaning is in Psalms 116:11, the Psalmist used a hyperbolic language that exaggerates or overstates the truth so to speak. For example, when we say, “Everything has gone wrong today,” or “No one cares that I’m sick,” we are more than likely exaggerate the truth. The statement that “all men are liars” in verse 11 follows that pattern. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who abandon him during a time of trouble and not suggesting the whole entire human race of men. He felt emotionally of being forsaken in his time of distress. And those people couldn't be trusted, their promises proved to be unreliable, and their words are nothing but lies. The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is not one of those particular people who is unfaithful, and he didn't abandon that person during the time of trouble.

Where does Jesus Christ fit in the category of Psalms 116:11?

All men are liars. False
No men are liars. False
Some men are liars. False
Some men are not liars. True

The second contextual meaning is in Romans 3:4, Paul imagined someone in verse 3 "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?" He used an emphatic phrase that is showing emphasis and expressing himself forcibly and clearly. For example, when we say, "no way," or "that's not true," the English translations use the phrases such as "God forbid," "Not at all," and "By no means!" This exclamation is repeated many times in Romans. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who are unfaithful while God always remain faithful to them. And its not suggesting the whole entire human race of men. In other words, God's faithfulness does not depend on men faithfulness. Because God's faithfulness is always remaining the same unchangeably in men faithfulness and unfaithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13). The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is always faithful to God the Father and the Father has always been well pleased with him.

Where does Jesus Christ fit in the category of Romans 3:4?

All men are liars. False
No men are liars. False
Some men are liars. False
Some men are not liars. True

Therefore, Liar Paradox Syllogism is a non sequitur since premise 3 is a false statement which doesn't logically follow from premise 1 as another false statement. I've demonstrated this by the different types of contextual meanings Scripturally. Its been commonly believe that "all men are liars" is in reference to the whole entire human race of men. That is a false statement and a false belief. After all, there is no Scriptures to prove a universal affirmative since there is at least one man who remained sinless and have never lied (1 Peter 2:22). So, Jesus Christ doesn't fit in the categories of all contexts. There simply was never a paradox and a contradiction to begin with.

P.S. I made my response after reading the OP and before reading what followed, and still have not read it. I will wait to do so until you "grade my response."

Go for it. I been waiting for some feedback.

 

[Fred]

Liar Paradox: "according to the human nature of Christ."

Premise 1: All men are liars.​

Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man.​

Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a liar.​

How would you resolve this paradox?

I would challenge premise 2 in that Jesus was not only a man. He is also God.

 

[Arial]

Was Paul aware of the Liar Paradox?

If what you say is historical truth, and I have no reason to doubt it, and some reason to consider it, just not with such depth, then of course he was aware of it.

 

[Arial]

@Binyawmene

An example of a paradox that I came up against early in my Christianity was Heb 6:4-6. I was doing a read through of the Bible, OT and NT simultaneously. It shocked me, shook me for a moment, because I believed one could not lose their salvation. Since I was only beginning, I could not solve the paradox that existed with my belief. And my belief that one could not lose their salvation did not yet have enough information to go beyond a certain conviction that if Jesus purchased me with His blood, I was purchased. So I let it rest for years really, simply knowing what it did not mean, but not knowing exactly what it did mean.

Unfortunately, many make a doctrine that teaches we can lose our salvation from that one scripture, or predominately from that scripture, never realizing there is either a paradox or a contradiction within the Bible on that subject. And if it is ever pointed out to them and put under the microscope of the full counsel of God, they will not move from their position or use of the scripture.

What is clearly said about whether or not we can lose our salvation is ignored.

John 10:27-29; Romans 8:29-30; Eph 1:13-14. Not to mention, if we believe we are given eternal life. And we are justified before God through faith.

 

[Fred]

1 Corinthians 7:22
For he who is called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he who is called, being free, is Christ's slave.

BDAG (3rd Edition): Paradox: the free pers. a slave of Christ 1 Cor 7:22 (eleutheros, page 317)

 

[Binyawmene]

@Binyawmene

An example of a paradox that I came up against early in my Christianity was Heb 6:4-6. I was doing a read through of the Bible, OT and NT simultaneously. It shocked me, shook me for a moment, because I believed one could not lose their salvation. Since I was only beginning, I could not solve the paradox that existed with my belief. And my belief that one could not lose their salvation did not yet have enough information to go beyond a certain conviction that if Jesus purchased me with His blood, I was purchased. So I let it rest for years really, simply knowing what it did not mean, but not knowing exactly what it did mean.

Unfortunately, many make a doctrine that teaches we can lose our salvation from that one scripture, or predominately from that scripture, never realizing there is either a paradox or a contradiction within the Bible on that subject. And if it is ever pointed out to them and put under the microscope of the full counsel of God, they will not move from their position or use of the scripture.

What is clearly said about whether or not we can lose our salvation is ignored.

John 10:27-29; Romans 8:29-30; Eph 1:13-14. Not to mention, if we believe we are given eternal life. And we are justified before God through faith.

Yes, I am writing a book on the Hypostatic Union's frameworks. Give answers to complicated questions. And to Scripturally demonstrate if the frameworks are logical or contradictory. One of the topics I was working on was paradoxes. Like liar paradox for the human nature and omnipotent paradox for the divine nature. I was more interested in thoughts and opinions, feedback. Here is an example of omnipotent paradox:

Let's say that nothing is impossible with God. For example, of the Omnipotent Paradox, "God can pop out of existence and not pop back into existence?" Maybe you believe God can perform such actions. Then he cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand, if God cannot limit its own actions, then that is something God cannot do. The Scriptural context in Matthew 19:26 has God performing the "possible" from his omnipotence. Which implies that the possible is restricted only in respect of salvation. But scripturally there is an overall broad extensive application of God's omnipotence that is restricted to his nature where the property of omnipotence is derived.

If Christ could limit his omnipotent, then its according to the Divine Nature. Christ cannot limit his omnipotent according to his human nature since the human nature itself doesn't have the property of omnipotence. The Omnipotent Paradox can only be in reference according to one of Christ's natures (the divine nature) and not between both natures. After all Christ has two natures that are two difference senses and not the same sense. He is God in the flesh, and as God he said: "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26 i.e. Mark 10:27, Luke 18:27).

Categorical Syllogism: All S are P
"All things are possible."

Predicate Logic: ∀x∀ (Sx ---> Px)
"All things are possible."

We perceive God performing the impossible from the standpoint of us being human beings since we are not omnipotent. But from God's standpoint he performs what is only possible in context of his essential nature or the Divine Nature. And within the scope of a quantifier God is free to perform all though things that are possible from his omnipotent only within the scope or within the means that "He cannot go against his own nature" i.e. or all things that are possible in accordance to his nature. In 2 Timothy 2:13 "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." God is omnipotent and nothing is impossible, not in the sense of unlimited capacity, but only in the extended range and scope of his essential nature. He cannot disown himself of who he is essentially. Even if God became powerless, he still remains all powerful.

 

[David1701]

What is a Paradox? A paradox is a proposition which on the face of it seem self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance contain some common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well founded or essentially false. When speaking in context of God, a paradox usually accompanied with contradictory absurd assumptions. Every paradox appears to imply that something false is true, which is impossible, at least on a traditional understanding of logic. As if nothing impossible can occur, but paradoxes appear to be cases where something impossible is occurring. In that sense, paradoxes are intellectual and theoretical problems. To solve a paradox is to solve the problem, for example by pointing out which of the paradox’s premises are not true, or by explaining why its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

The rules for the Liar Paradox: A paradox is having a statement as both true and false, for example "All men are liars." But if we affirm the statement to be false statement, then it contradicts the statement as a true statement on its own merit. Or calling a statement false is apparently equivalent to calling its negation true "If the statement is false, then it's true." If we affirm a statement to be true statement on its own merit, then it contradicts its own claims that its false. Or calling a statement true is apparently equivalent to calling its negation false "If the statement is true, then its false." But if the statement IS NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE, then there was no true value.​

Some Scriptural References:

Titus 1:2 "...which God, who does not lie,"​

Psalm 116:11 “Everyone is a liar.”​

Romans 3:4. "Let God be true, and every human being a liar."​

1 Peter 2:22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”​

Liar Paradox: "according to the human nature of Christ."

Premise 1: All men are liars.​

Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man.​

Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a liar.​

The word "all" appears contradictory to be both true and false.

a). If there is at least one man (Jesus Christ) who tells the truth, then "all men are liars" is a false statement. In a particular affirmative I-statement: Some S are P, the "S" (subject) "P" (predicate) are always undistributed. "Some men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are not distributed as liars.​

​

b). On the other hand, If "all men are liars" is a truth statement, then Jesus Christ is also a liar for he is included in the "all." In a universal affirmative A-statement: All S are P, the "S" (subject) and "P" (predicate) are always distributed. "All men are liars." <--- Entire extension of men are distributed as liars.​

How would you resolve this paradox?

Oh, good grief!

This comes across like an unthinking computer applying overly rigid algorithms to language. You need to take the context of each statement into account, in order to understand it properly.

Let's take your "Liar Paradox" as an example.

Premise 1: All men are liars (the unspoken assumption in the verse is that it refers to all fallen men)
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man (yes; but, he is not a fallen man, nor is he only man; he is also God, who cannot lie)
Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ (non-sequitur, due to the necessary contextualisation in 1 and 2)

Not only the above, but also, "all" does not necessarily mean "all without exception, of every kind" (in fact, it is rarely used this way, so to assume that it is used this way, without contextual affirmation, is a great mistake).

This is not difficult. It is only made to appear so, by using the unnecessary complexity of logic jargon.

 

[Binyawmene]

Oh, good grief!

This comes across like an unthinking computer applying overly rigid algorithms to language. You need to take the context of each statement into account, in order to understand it properly.

Let's take your "Liar Paradox" as an example.

Premise 1: All men are liars (the unspoken assumption in the verse is that it refers to all fallen men)
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is a man (yes; but he is not a fallen man, nor is he only man; he is also God, who cannot lie)
Premise 3: Therefore, Jesus Christ (non-sequitur, due to the necessary contextualization in 1 and 2)

Not only the above, but also, "all" does not necessarily mean "all without exception, of every kind" (in fact, it is rarely used this way, so to assume that it is used this way, without contextual affirmation, is a great mistake).

This is not difficult. It is only made to appear so, by using the unnecessary complexity of logic jargon.

Agreed. My argument is based on the word "all." The thing is, I've never come across any Scriptures that teaches a universal affirmative the "S" (subject) is being distributed to imply the whole entire human race of men.

"S" is the subject
"P" is the predicate

All S are P
"All men are liars"

The closest verse is Romans 3:4 and that is only in reference to a certain group of people who are unfaithful to God. Unless you want to disagree with my interpretation:

The second contextual meaning is in Romans 3:4, Paul imagined someone in verse 3 "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?" He used an emphatic phrase that is showing emphasis and expressing himself forcibly and clearly. For example, when we say, "no way," or "that's not true," the English translations use the phrases such as "God forbid," "Not at all," and "By no means!" This exclamation is repeated many times in Romans. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who are unfaithful while God always remain faithful to them. And it's not suggesting the whole entire human race of men. In other words, God's faithfulness does not depend on men faithfulness. Because God's faithfulness is always remaining the same unchangeably in men faithfulness and unfaithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13). The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is always faithful to God the Father and the Father has always been well pleased with him.

Where does Jesus Christ fit in the category of Romans 3:4?

All men are liars. False
No men are liars. False
Some men are liars. False
Some men are not liars. True

 

[David1701]

Agreed. My argument is based on the word "all." The thing is, I've never come across any Scriptures that teaches a universal affirmative the "S" (subject) is being distributed to imply the whole entire human race of men.

"S" is the subject
"P" is the predicate

All S are P
"All men are liars"

The closest verse is Romans 3:4 and that is only in reference to a certain group of people who are unfaithful to God. Unless you want to disagree with my interpretation:

The second contextual meaning is in Romans 3:4, Paul imagined someone in verse 3 "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?" He used an emphatic phrase that is showing emphasis and expressing himself forcibly and clearly. For example, when we say, "no way," or "that's not true," the English translations use the phrases such as "God forbid," "Not at all," and "By no means!" This exclamation is repeated many times in Romans. So, the word "all" in the phrase "all men are liars" is referring to those particular people who are unfaithful while God always remain faithful to them. And it's not suggesting the whole entire human race of men. In other words, God's faithfulness does not depend on men faithfulness. Because God's faithfulness is always remaining the same unchangeably in men faithfulness and unfaithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13). The context doesn't apply to Jesus Christ because he is always faithful to God the Father and the Father has always been well pleased with him.

Where does Jesus Christ fit in the category of Romans 3:4?

All men are liars. False
No men are liars. False
Some men are liars. False
Some men are not liars. True

In Rom. 3:4, Jesus Christ fits into the category of "...let God be true...". The "...and every man a liar..." refers to fallen men, who all lie, some more and some less. It needs to be noted that "...let God be true..." is contrasted with "...and every man a liar..." (i.e. God contrasted with fallen, sinful man), so, for that reason, amongst others, it cannot refer to Jesus Christ, since he is God and sinless man.

 

[Binyawmene]

In Rom. 3:4, Jesus Christ fits into the category of "...let God be true...".

Amen.

The "...and every man a liar..." refers to fallen men, who all lie, some more and some less. It needs to be noted that "...let God be true..." is contrasted with "...and every man a liar..." (i.e. God contrasted with fallen, sinful man), so, for that reason, amongst others, it cannot refer to Jesus Christ, since he is God and sinless man.

Very good. Keep up the good work.

 

[David1701]

Amen.



Very good. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, Binyawmene.

I just wish that you and that other poster would stop using this "first-order logic" jargon, since very few people are going to be familiar with it.