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.

[Amarok]

So pretty much you don’t care if your arguments are fallacious!

Or you just scream fallacy to avoid defending your cult  

 You seem to be the one making up a story here.

Nope that would be you and your religion

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cant make things up and insert them into the silence, you say? Perhaps someone should have told that to the pious frauds..excuse me, excuse me.... "interpolaters" behind things like the TF?

[Amarok]

They will keep banging the drum of Argument from silence because they have no case .

[Amarok]

Richard Carrier again lays waste to Little Timmy 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14324

[Minimalist]

---

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.

There is no contemporary evidence that any of your horseshit is true.  Since it is YOUR HORSESHIT you bear the burden of proof.  Feel free to call us if you find something, in the meanwhile go blow your apologetics out your ass.

Once again we see RR expounding the Great Xtian Paradox:  "Jesus was so fucking dangerous and important that the authorities had no choice but to break every rule in their own fucking book to deal with him while, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, he was so fucking insignificant that no one in the first century wrote a fucking word about him.

Make up your fucking minds, assholes.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

There is no contemporary evidence that any of your horseshit is true.  Since it is YOUR HORSESHIT you bear the burden of proof.  Feel free to call us if you find something, in the meanwhile go blow your apologetics out your ass.

Once again we see RR expounding the Great Xtian Paradox:  "Jesus was so fucking dangerous and important that the authorities had no choice but to break every rule in their own fucking book to deal with him while, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, he was so fucking insignificant that no one in the first century wrote a fucking word about him.

Make up your fucking minds, assholes.

I do think that this is false, there is contemporary evidence from the writers of the new testament. There is also hostile witness (or at least non-friendly) shortly after (which would also be considered contemporary). Even if you don't want to admit it. You may also note, that I wasn't making any claims, other than refuting a bad argument from silence until now. I was commenting to your claims.

You are making a claim here, so you have the need to support it (not trying to shift that onto me). There is a valid way to make an argument from silence. Unfortunately for the mythicists, "surely someone somewhere would have wrote something" falls into the fallacious category. You need a specific writer, a specific work, and a reason why it should be expected, and would not be left out. When I have looked at the lists that are sometimes provided, it often doesn't even make sense, that Jesus should have been mentioned, let alone, that some list contain people who had died before Jesus's ministry ever began.