Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Angrboda]

So pretty much you don’t care if your arguments are fallacious!  You seem to be the one making up a story here.

You don't seem to be using the word 'fallacious' in a standard way as regards logical arguments. It is not possible to use a fallacious argument correctly, because of a flaw in the reasoning, the conclusion will only ever be correct by coincidence. You seem to be using it to claim that Min is interpreting the available evidence incorrectly, which is a completely different matter. Because we often get tied up in the knots of logical reasoning around here, it might ease communication if you said 'mistaken' unless you can point out the formal or informal fallacy that was used, or at least explain why the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The argument from silence goes something like this:

P1: If Jesus was a real historical figure who drew large crowds and was executed by the Romans, we would expect him to be mentioned by contemporary historians.

P2: We do not find the expected contemporary confirmation in the works of historians who were in the area and would have been contemporaries of Jesus.

Therefore: Jesus was probably not a real historical figure.

If the conclusion is wrong, I don't see how it's because it doesn't follow from the premises. Arguing the premises could be a valid counterpoint, but there's no fallacy involved. It would be fallacious to have the following conclusion, though:

Therefore: Jesus was definitely not a real historical figure.

It's not a formal fallacy, but you can't get certainty from those premises.

I believe it is considered a fallacy if the conclusion is made solely on the absence of evidence. If, however, it can be shown that evidence should be expected where none exists, it's not necessarily a fallacy. The question is whether or not we should have expected some mention of the Testimonium Flavianum prior to Eusebius. In that case, it's been pointed out that one would have expected Origen to mention it if it had been present, so in this case it's not necessarily fallacious. On the other hand, it's not a particularly strong argument, either.