Following is an excerpt of what happened:

At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." "I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do." Acts 26:24-27

What did Paul have to be sure of when he made these bold statements?

He had to know what he was saying was true!
He had to know the King knew what he was saying was true!
He had to know that the King had more authority (and knowledge of the facts) then Festus because he appealed directly (and fearlessly) to Agrippa!

Isn’t this good evidence Paul was sure of what he was asserting?
Absolutely! He knew what he was saying was truth (because he lived it, and he knew others who lived it). He believed it so much, he was exceptionally audacious in his speech and manner……

Now back to Pilate and Jesus. Pilate didn’t wait on Jesus to respond, Instead he acted as if he had some knowledge of truth. Remember, He told the crowd “I find no fault with this man” (John 8:38). By exonerating Jesus, Pilate was making a “true statement: a statement that corresponds to fact or reality”.

#2- Can we know truth:

Here’s some truths about truth;

Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone’s knowledge of it. (Gravity existed prior to Newton)
Truth is Trans-cultural; if something is true, it’s true for all people, in all places, at all times (2+2=4 for everyone, everywhere at every time).
Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change ( when we finally believed the Earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the Earth didn’t change, only our belief about the Earth changed).
Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held. (Someone can sincerely believe the world is flat, but that only makes that person sincerely wrong).
Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it. (An arrogant person does not make the truth he professes false. A humble person does not make the error he professes true).

All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute! (for example, it was 90 degrees in Dubois, Pennsylvania on 20 June 2007. That I felt warm there on that day may appear to be a relative truth, but it was actually absolutely true for everyone everywhere that I was warm on that day).

So what do these examples of truth tell us? Simply this: that contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true!

So what about the opposite? How do we deal with the assertion that “there is no truth”?

Another simple answer: We apply the assertion back on itself (or turn the statement back on itself)! For example, If I told you that I cannot speak a word of English. Your obvious response would be “Wait a minute! Your statement must be false, because you just uttered it in English!” The statement itself was self-defeating!

A self-defeating statement is one that fails to meet it’s own criteria

So whenever we hear on of these relativists, skeptics, atheistic and/or humanists postmodern thinkers espousing their self defeating beliefs, we reply with the rhetorical question that exposes the fallacy in their logic.