In response to our argu­ment that Paul’s fum­bling of the Epi­menides para­dox is proof that the ad-hoc ​“apos­tle” was not inspired after all, one Chris­t­ian has raised an objec­tion. The attempt­ed rebut­tal acknowl­edges the para­dox­i­cal nature of Epi­menides’ state­ment, but then makes the bizarre claim that Paul’s state­ment is true nonethe­less due to oth­er ele­ments attrib­uted to the Cre­tan ​“prophet” by the ​“apos­tle”.