Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

A silence may raise questions, or cause one to take notice, and look for a more substantial case. However, unless you can make a valid case for the argument from silence, you can’t just make things up, and insert them into the silence. It can be done, but the argument from silence (legitimate) isn’t an easy case to make.