Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Cavebear]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries"  is an argument  by consensus,  a logical fallacy.

Nothing "bollocks" about it dude. It's been in the lexicon for decades.  It's very easy to verify as well. Simply google the following, with quote marks included:

"What Proof Do You Have?"

And when I say "some dictionaries" I am not using an argument by consensus, but merely showing how "some dictionaries" have recognized how the word "proof' has become synonymous with "evidence" in the modern lexicon, and have adjusted for it.

If what I am saying isn't true, then perhaps you need to explain the 155,000 Google results that demonstrate how the word "proof" is being used as a substitute for "evidence."

By all means, the floor is all yours.

Following  that argument  means that at least some the claims of the bible are  proof or that the writings of the  Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of  Jesus. 

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  What it is not is proof of absence.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed  with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus  of "likely' or 'probable' 

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified. 

Well then, sorry to inform you, but your position is not mythicist, it's historicist., which is my position. 

Oh, please dude me no dudes.  You may call me  'mate" or 'dickhead ' or even stubborn old bastard.  "Dude" is a vulgar Americanism. 

 Not mythicist?  Oh, then what are we arguing about?  Is it a matter of  degree, or semantics? Or is it I who is being pedantic?  Where do you draw the line?   I'm perfectly happy with my position that the New Testament is the mythology of Christianity. The includes Saul Of Tarsus' putative letters.

Seems I'm mistaken about the current meaning of 'evidence' , my apologies.

 That leaves me confused; what  do you call something produced  as evidence which isn't proof?   Does it stop being 'evidence' ? Or does it become 'not credible evidence,' or perhaps 'hearsay evidence? . Seems imprecise, but what  do I know.

Well, to be fair, first "dude" may be a "vulgar Americanism" but it generally means "an equal". And sometimes a superlative ("man that guy is real DUDE"), though I doubt it was meant that way in this usage.

Second, dictionaries are not authorities of definitions. They are records of general/current usage. One of my aunts worked on the Third Webster's International Dictionary and explained that in detail when I asked about it. Word meanings change through time. I recently noticed in a newspaper article about words that "silly" used to just mean "fun-loving", and it used to be normal that happy straight people were "gay".

Third, proof and evidence are not the same thing. Evidence is a fingerprint or tracks in the snow. Proof is an uncontestable accumulation of facts that lead to a conclusion.