That would be known as the argument from silence fallacy. An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than the presence of the concept, description, meaning or use of an alternative word. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid and fallacious in nature.
You clearly don't really understand historical method or when it is appropriate to employ historiological terms.
Firstly let's put to bed the idea that an argument from silence is a fallacy. It isn't. It merely
has a lesser status than conclusive evidence, and is regarded as presumptive evidence. Anyway, historiology is a complex field, and one I suggest you avoid.
Secondly i am not even making this kind of argument anyway.
If Marco Polo never mentioned the Great Wall of China, it is speculative to say that he never really visited China, but
perfectly reasonable to suggest that he never visited the great Wall of China! (However, a speculative proof could be considered corroborative evidence if amassed amongst other proofs).
I never said that the fact Thessalonians doesn't mention the GT or the AC invalidates those concepts- that was never my argument. My argument is simply that you are inventing a connection where none exists. To take your logic to its logical conclusion - reductio ad absurdum -
If Nicholas Tesla wrote an essay on electricity, and you interpreted it to be about hydroponics, and I
questioned your interpretation, you could not really invoke the argument from silence.
I am saying that his paper is about electricity not hydroponics,
you are saying that although his paper appears to be about electricity and not hydroponics,
I am using an argument from silence, and the fact he doesn't mention hydroponics proves
nothing - nay the contrary, that although he never mention hydroponics that is in fact what he is writing about!
Seriously EWQ, your sophistry may dazzle some followers, but not me. Just stick to the matter in hand
and try to avoid sleight of hand.