Thoughts and Opinions about the Liar Paradox

[LeviR]

If Christ knew the day and hour of his coming and said he did not, he would be lying.
God knows something Christ did not.
Shows the Father is greater than the Son.
Not being equal in knowledge of everything.

 

[Binyawmene]

Yes, I get that. I chose the wrong example to make my point. Most of the time when such statements are made, it is only the hard take of the terms that produce the conflict.

Your opinions and thoughts matter. Here is what Apologetics Press says:

"To say that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” is to say that the Cretan society as a whole was immoral and decadent, not necessarily that every single individual in that society was a liar, evil beast, or lazy glutton. When viewed in the light of hyperbole, there is no logical paradox found in Titus 1:12. Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders. Paul was not affirming a contradiction but following a common literary convention.​

1. I don't believe that Paul is agreeing to a paradox or a contradiction.
2. I believe that Paul changed a universal to a particular and thus solved the paradox.
3. There is no evidence (from my standpoint) that Paul is speaking in hyperbole.

 

[makesends]

Your opinions and thoughts matter. Here is what Apologetics Press says:

"To say that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” is to say that the Cretan society as a whole was immoral and decadent, not necessarily that every single individual in that society was a liar, evil beast, or lazy glutton. When viewed in the light of hyperbole, there is no logical paradox found in Titus 1:12. Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders. Paul was not affirming a contradiction but following a common literary convention.​

1. I don't believe that Paul is agreeing to a paradox or a contradiction.
2. I believe that Paul changed a universal to a particular and thus solved the paradox.
3. There is no evidence (from my standpoint) that Paul is speaking in hyperbole.

I agree with your 3 points. Well done, and interesting research.

 

[makesends]

Josheb said:
So, perhaps next time an op doesn't get a response consider the possibility the problem is in the op, not the readers because blaming others (especially for their supposedly lack of faculty) isn't likely to foster replies.

Not a problem to me. I do appreciate your concern, but it wasn't helpful since it doesn't apply.

The reason I didn't respond right away was because I didn't see the OP posted. It happens.

 

[Mr GLee]

If Christ knew the day and hour of his coming and said he did not, he would be lying.
God knows something Christ did not.
Shows the Father is greater than the Son.
Not being equal in knowledge of everything.

God is Christ the anointing teaching master .

 

[Mr GLee]

Your opinions and thoughts matter. Here is what Apologetics Press says:

"To say that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” is to say that the Cretan society as a whole was immoral and decadent, not necessarily that every single individual in that society was a liar, evil beast, or lazy glutton. When viewed in the light of hyperbole, there is no logical paradox found in Titus 1:12. Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders. Paul was not affirming a contradiction but following a common literary convention.​

1. I don't believe that Paul is agreeing to a paradox or a contradiction.
2. I believe that Paul changed a universal to a particular and thus solved the paradox.
3. There is no evidence (from my standpoint) that Paul is speaking in hyperbole.

I would think without parable paradoxes Christ the teacher master spoke not .

Men were teaching doctrines of dying mankind. Making sola scriptura(all things written in the law and prophets) without effect.

Titus1: 11-13 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a (false) prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; . . . . .The unseen power of Christ Life giving living words

 

[Binyawmene]

I agree with your 3 points. Well done, and interesting research.

Thanks. Do you disagree with 1 and 2 points?

Yes, if you read in post 2, I've stated:

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.​

And this is evidence by the fact that,

a). The phrase was mentioned in the philosophical School of Megarians.
b). The phrase was mentioned by Aristotle and by Cicero.​

It's highly recommended that Paul was aware of the Epimenides paradox. And the context of Titus 1 demonstrates it. To suggest that he wasn't aware would be an argument from silence. If, Epimenides was making a hyperbolic statement, then Paul's agreement suggest he used the phrase also in hyperbolic statement. A person would need to demonstrate that Epimenides was making a hyperbole and then prove that is how Paul understood it. The same goes for writing rhetorically or just simply speaking in general. Unless for fun, laughs, and giggles we can talk about Star Trek.

 

[makesends]

Thanks. Do you disagree with 1 and 2 points?

Yes, if you read in post 2, I've stated:

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.​

And this is evidence by the fact that,

a). The phrase was mentioned in the philosophical School of Megarians.​

b). The phrase was mentioned by Aristotle and by Cicero.​

It's highly recommended that Paul was aware of the Epimenides paradox. And the context of Titus 1 demonstrates it. To suggest that he wasn't aware would be an argument from silence. If, Epimenides was making a hyperbolic statement, then Paul's agreement suggest he used the phrase also in hyperbolic statement. A person would need to demonstrate that Epimenides was making a hyperbole and then prove that is how Paul understood it. The same goes for writing rhetorically or just simply speaking in general. Unless for fun, laughs, and giggles we can talk about Star Trek.

Yes, I agree with all three, for a couple of reasons: It is the simplest explanation, and it is the way I think, too.

 

[Josheb]

Red herring. The pot calling the kettle black.
And I'm offended by you calling my statement a ad hominem which is an ad hominem towards me.

Nonsense. To observe that a statement makes an illogical argument has nothing to do with the person making the error and the failure to separate what a person does from who a person is is another logical error. My point is simple and very scriptural. If there was genuine concern about the silence this op had received, then the best choice would have been to look first at the op rather than to insinuate anything negative about others. Why would a timely response be expected to such an esoteric commentary? Why blame others for those conditions?

Pos #19 makes that worse by repeating the same problem again.

Of course. Having a background story behind what Paul quoted is how you understand the context. Although I like your idea that Paul was only writing rhetorically or just simply speaking in general.

That was all Post 19 should have contained.

But that just not how it appears in context.

Incorrect.

Most Christians do not know Paul is quoting Epimenides. Many, if not most, Christians who do know it is a quote from Epimenides don't know what Epimenides said or why he said it. Epimenides did not literal think all Cretans liars. That would be irrational and Epimenides was not being irrational; he was being rhetorical (in the form of satire). Epimenides was not a Sophist, but the quote mine is a sophism; just not one that includes Epimenides. Once the facts are known the context becomes apparent.



The next time replies to an op are delayed consider first that is a product of the op.

 

[Binyawmene]

Nonsense. To observe that a statement makes an illogical argument has nothing to do with the person making the error and the failure to separate what a person does from who a person is is another logical error. My point is simple and very scriptural. If there was genuine concern about the silence this op had received, then the best choice would have been to look first at the op rather than to insinuate anything negative about others. Why would a timely response be expected to such an esoteric commentary? Why blame others for those conditions?

Red herring. Off-topic.

Pos #19 makes that worse by repeating the same problem again.

Nothing of substance here.

That was all Post 19 should have contained.

Nothing of substance here.

Incorrect.

Most Christians do not know Paul is quoting Epimenides. Many, if not most, Christians who do know it is a quote from Epimenides don't know what Epimenides said or why he said it. Epimenides did not literal think all Cretans liars. That would be irrational and Epimenides was not being irrational; he was being rhetorical (in the form of satire). Epimenides was not a Sophist, but the quote mine is a sophism; just not one that includes Epimenides. Once the facts are known the context becomes apparent.

Finally, some substance. You are making a lot of assumptions in the above quote. To suggest 1st. century Christians in Crete is not aware of the quote is a far stretch of imagination. The story of Zeus is part of their culture. All you got to do is prove that Epimenides is writing rhetorically (that's the main point) and then demonstrate that how Paul understood it. That would be the end, and everyone walks away peacefully. This could turn into an interesting discussion because the context of Titus 1 doesn't affirm your position.

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.​

​

All Cretans are liars​

​

Which I have stated in post 2: 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.​

The next time replies to an op are delayed consider first that is a product of the op.

Red herring., Stay on topic.

 

[Arial]

Ad hominem. Blame others by attributing a lack of want to them. Perhaps the lack of response was due to mistakes in the op, such as...

Statements like this are themselves as hominem and need to go.

 

[Mr GLee]

Finally, some substance. You are making a lot of assumptions in the above quote. To suggest 1st. century Christians in Crete is not aware of the quote is a far stretch of imagination. The story of Zeus is part of their culture. All you got to do is prove that Epimenides is writing rhetorically (that's the main point) and then demonstrate that how Paul understood it. That would be the end, and everyone walks away peacefully. This could turn into an interesting discussion because the context of Titus 1 doesn't affirm your position.

Was Epimenides a prophet?

Does prohecy have anything to do Zeus?

 

[Binyawmene]

This is a valid questions to ask.

Was Epimenides a prophet?

No. He was a Philosopher/Poet.

Why Paul refers to him as a prophet?
I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer that question for you.

2. a poet (because poets were believed to sing under divine inspiration): so of Epimenides, Titus 1:12.

Does prophecy have anything to do with Zeus?

No. Definitely not in the Biblical sense of prophecy.

Why did Paul quote a snip of Epimenides writings?
I am confident that Paul used the quote to appeal to the Greeks and to witness about Christ's resurrection.

Read post 17.

 

[Josheb]

Red herring. Off-topic.
Nothing of substance here.
Nothing of substance here.
Red herring. Off-topic.

It's not off-topic.

Post #3 inescapably gaslights everyone (whether that was the intent or not). Post 3 brought that into the discussion. My commentary about the rhetorical contexts (both sophist and literary) is correct, valid, and completely ON topic. It's also very important because the opening two posts neglect that fact and there is, therefore, the risk that everyone reading the op might walk away thinking the opening posts are wholly correct when something very important has been left out. My mention of the rhetorical contexts was previously commended, so any attempt to dismiss, ignore, or dissent from those contexts will only prove to make your posts contradict themselves.

Lastly, every single post that followed my op reply was/is an opportunity for us to post collaboratively for the benefit of this op and that's not happening. I have no problem with you. There's a lot to commend in the op but there'll be no commendation from me until the very, very, very important fact of the rhetorical context is embraced, not just dismissively acknowledged.

And that is not on me.

• Gaslighting others should never have been posted.
• The opening post should have been examined first and that should have been the first thing posted about the lack of replies received.
• The definition of "paradox" is incorrect.
• The rhetorical contexts are absent (whether mistakenly neglected or willfully ignored I cannot say, but they are absent) and there absence is very important to a correct understanding of the Liar's Paradox.

Every single one of those points is directly related to something posted in the opening posts. Not a single one of them is off-topic because method is just as important as content. I invite the discussion of those points op-relevantly with me but if dismissive or adversarialness is what I should expect then I will move on. Or simply be silent. Everyone understands the meaning of silence in an internet discussion board.

Finally, some substance. You are making a lot of assumptions in the above quote. To suggest 1st. century Christians in Crete is not aware of the quote is a far stretch of imagination..........

No, I am not making a lot of assumptions. Paul clearly knew of Epimenides. His Roman/Greek readership knew of Epimenides. Due to the prominent influence of Hellenism during the intertestamental period we can rationally infer (not baselessly assume) his Jewish readers also knew of Epimenides. "Cretica" was written before the intertestamental period (during the time of Sennacherib and the Assyrian capture of Israel) and by the time Paul wrote Titus "Cretica" was a well-established text in Greco-Roman cultures. The use of Sophist rhetoric was also well established, having its origins going back before Socrates and Plato. All of this occurred during the time of 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and is found mentioned in various places in the prophets. Jews from Crete are mentioned in Acts 2:11, some of whom were likely among those converted to Christ at Pentecost. The assumption would be to assume Jews and Christians living in Greco-Roman lands did NOT know of Epimenides' "Cretica" or the sophist rhetoric contained therein. Lastly, the use of rhetoric in logic (or in the case of Paul's letter to Titus, apologetics) is well established and was in use long before Epimendies or Paul employed it. Paul was Greek. He'd been raised in Tarsus before being sent to Jerusalem to study with the Pharisees. Paul also debated with the philosophers in the Areopagus at Mars Hill in Athens. If Paul were writing something so esoteric that his readers did not, would not, or could not understand it then he is to be blamed for any lack of comprehension and his quote of Epimenides' "Cretica" is a work of flesh, not a function of the Spirit's inspiration. Understanding Paul's use of literary rhetoric (implicitly in disdain of Sophist rhetoric) is important for understanding the Titus text.... and the Liar's Paradox as it pertains to Christian understanding of scripture and apologetics.



So, stop being unnecessarily antagonistic and dismissive and either ignore my posts or engage their content properly in support of this op.

 

[Binyawmene]

It's not off-topic.

Post #3 inescapably gaslights everyone (whether that was the intent or not).

Snip*

I invite the discussion of those points op-relevantly with me but if dismissive or adversariness is what I should expect then I will move on.

Yeah, here we go again. More of your red herring and off topic discussion. Trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. This is where we move on because the discussion about paradox goes nowhere. I'm not going to be your next victim and place myself underneath your ad hom ridicule that doesn't even apply to me to begin with. That is, you are gaslighting me. Only thing you are doing is committing a red herring which is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. Or someone who tries to divert attention from the main issue to a different, often unrelated topic. You are so focus on a so-called ad hominem that was time stamp Aug 1, 2023 (a year ago) that you failed to demonstrate your position. Now since you were confronted with the ad hom, then you want to switch it up to gaslighting.

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.​

Don't get me wrong. I am encouraged and thankful that you've shared your thoughts and opinions. But they are unsubstantiated. And all you are doing is reinforcing what you've previously stated. I'm not asking you how many ways you can rewrite what you've previously said. I want you to prove your claim that Epimenides was writing rhetorically. That's it. That would mean a lot, seriously. If you can't prove it, then no big deal to me. We can gladly move on from this negative experience.

No, I am not making a lot of assumptions. Paul clearly knew of Epimenides. His Roman/Greek readership knew of Epimenides. Due to the prominent influence of Hellenism during the intertestamental period we can rationally infer (not baselessly assume) his Jewish readers also knew of Epimenides. "Cretica" was written before the intertestamental period (during the time of Sennacherib and the Assyrian capture of Israel) and by the time Paul wrote Titus "Cretica" was a well-established text in Greco-Roman cultures. The use of Sophist rhetoric was also well established, having its origins going back before Socrates and Plato. All of this occurred during the time of 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and is found mentioned in various places in the prophets.

Even if this is historically true. Tracing the art of rhetoric doesn't prove Epimenides' quote is rhetorical.

Jews from Crete are mentioned in Acts 2:11, some of whom were likely among those converted to Christ at Pentecost. The assumption would be to assume Jews and Christians living in Greco-Roman lands did NOT know of Epimenides' "Cretica" or the sophist rhetoric contained therein. Lastly, the use of rhetoric in logic (or in the case of Paul's letter to Titus, apologetics) is well established and was in use long before Epimendies or Paul employed it. Paul was Greek. He'd been raised in Tarsus before being sent to Jerusalem to study with the Pharisees. Paul also debated with the philosophers in the Areopagus at Mars Hill in Athens. If Paul were writing something so esoteric that his readers did not, would not, or could not understand it then he is to be blamed for any lack of comprehension and his quote of Epimenides' "Cretica" is a work of flesh, not a function of the Spirit's inspiration. Understanding Paul's use of literary rhetoric (implicitly in disdain of Sophist rhetoric) is important for understanding the Titus text.... and the Liar's Paradox as it pertains to Christian understanding of scripture and apologetics.

And my final words. No. Paul's agreement with Epimenides' quote wasn't because he believe that Zeus was immortal or that the quote is rhetorical. And that's why all Gretans are liars. Or engaging in some kind of stereotyping, racial, and ethnic slurs. But that he is empathizing with Epimenides and having the same sentiment of 'Lying Cretans' based on the current situation.

Titus 1:10-13 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. ....​

Paul is not suggesting "all" since he said" 'For there are many," but not all. Thus, paradox is solved.

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 changes 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, it's 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.​

Paul doesn't tell us what the actual lie was in Titus 1. There would be no reason to explain the lie because someone might believe in it. And to suggest that Epimenides was writing rhetorically "All Cretan are liars" is to say Paul used the quote rhetorically too. But that is not the case when you read the context and there is no hint that Paul is writing rhetorically. Also, you cannot ignore the background story behind Epimenides' quote and how it would relate and apply to those 1sts. century Cretans. It would be highly unlikely to assume that Paul is misquoting Epimenides out of context and then reapply it to a situation that unrelated to the quote itself. Paul used the quote to appeal to the Greeks and to witness about Christ's resurrection.

So, stop being unnecessarily antagonistic and dismissive and either ignore my posts or engage their content properly in support of this op.

Gaslighting. Red herring. Off topic.