> As you know, a falsehood isn’t necessarily a contradiction. If someone says Johnson is a clear, logical thinker then that is an obvious falsehood. It’s not an obvious contradiction.

> My statment about Johnson doesn’t contain a contradiction – does it?

0: contradiction – opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

1: act or an instance of contradicting

2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other

3 a: logical incongruity
b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

What does valid evidence look like when compared to invalid evidence? Maybe an example will help make it clear to me.

“So, a word derives it’s meaning from it’s context. And A is not ~A at the same time and under the same conditions?”

You mean answer this question? I thought you were repeating my comment in your own words, not asking me to confirm what I just said. Anyway, I think this sounds close to what I said before.

“contradiction – (logic) a statement that is necessarily false;”

I agree. A false statement is not necessarily contradictory though. My statment about Johnson doesn’t contain a contradiction – does it? I didn’t see a contradiction in your statement either.

“Am I the only one that thinks that this guy has lost it?”

What part of my comment isn’t clear? I’d be happy to clarify it for you.

Am I the only one that thinks that this guy has lost it?

There speaks a Christian? Does the Holy Spirit make you talk gibberish? Or are you serving Satan, that’s part of your Christian mythology isn’t it?
Satan is supposed to be the father of lies. Are you playing the part of one of his servants in your Christian fairytale?

Answer my question!

What you’re saying here is that there IS evidence, just not the kind you find to be subjectively good or convincing.

“There is also no evidence of any historical character that might have contributed to, or seeded the Biblical Jesus.”

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

“Nevertheless, if someone says, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”, if they tell a falsehood is that a contradiction? ”

As you know, a falsehood isn’t necessarily a contradiction. If someone says Johnson is a clear, logical thinker then that is an obvious falsehood. It’s not an obvious contradiction.

So, a word derives it’s meaning from it’s context. And A is not ~A at the same time and under the same conditions?

There is no good evidence that the Biblical Jesus ever existed. There is also no evidence of any historical character that might have contributed to, or seeded the Biblical Jesus. This isn’t to say that there was not a “Jesus”, but the more I examine this issue the less likely it seems.

Nevertheless, if someone says, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”, if they tell a falsehood is that a contradiction?

If something is both A and -A at the same time and in the same context then that is a real contradiction and thus impossible.

A table can’t both be made entirely of wood and not be made entirely of wood. A table *can* be made entirely of wood and not entirely wood IF the word ‘wood’ is used in different contexts each time. This is an apparent contradiction.

> I can only find apparent contradictions, not *real* contradictions that would require me to abandon my belief in God.

OK. What constitutes, in your opinion, a real contradiction? Or, how would you define a contradiction?

Once I know this I can (hopefully) find out why obvious Biblical falsehoods don’t faze you.

I think you know my current standpoint on this, but I *am* willing to learn.