Mindysan is talking about “historical claims” in the sense “Modern historians claim that …”
And she is right: Was there a Roman occupation of Israel around the time of Christ? Yes. This is a historical statement, backed up by lots of archeology. Was there a wave of messianism and religious fervour in the Jewish community at the time? Yes. This is a historical statement. Were there people not long after who came to the Romans’ attention as followers of “Christ”? Yes. This is a historical statement. Was there a man named Jeheshua ben Joseph? (Historical statement: it’s plausible) Was he caught up in the Messianism? (Historical statement: It’s plausible) Did he make claims about his Davidic ancestry and the fulfilment of prophecies? (Historical statement: It’s plausible) Was he the Son of God who rose from the dead to save mankind? This is not a historical statement, it’s literally an article of faith. Historians place this question outside of historicity, not least because it’s not provable. All conceivable evidence for the proposition is explainable by entirely mundane things. If you don’t believe it, there is no evidence to prove it. If you believe that it’s true, then you believe it anyway. That’s what faith means.
That people believed that it was a historical fact, is a historical fact, which is another way of reading the term “historical claim”. What people used to believe is of historical interest of itself, but says nothing to the veracity of the claim. People used to believe in the four humours and Prester John’s Kingdom and Atlantis. That doesn’t mean those things existed in the way people thought they did.
You’re playing semantic games, and I don’t think you even realise you are.
