Why they didn't show the real History?

There were many eyewitness accounts written of Alexander, which are now lost, but were used as references in accounts that were later written and still remain.

There were eyewitness accounts of Jesus that writers used for the Gospels, but you will never accept that the eyewitness accounts that have been lost are just as valid for Jesus as for Alexander. And the Bible still remains-it is only in your mind that it is not historically accurate, despite archeological evidence that backs up many of the events in the Bible.

Let's be clear. I wasn't really expecting you to defend your double standard. Double standards are, by definition, indefensible. All those of us interested in fairness can do is express disapproval of double standards. Sometimes a double standard can be made illegal-for example, when the practice of holding blacks to a different standard than whites to vote was outlawed. But people like you, who hold double standards, always think they are right. They never consider how unjust their position is, or wonder if they should take another look at the facts. I didn't think you would change your perspective and become a fair and reasonable person, but it was worth a shot. Your double standard has been exposed for what it is. Now have the last word-I know how important that is to your sort.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

Okay, I'm a trained historian, and there is some documentary corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus. From the writings of Josephus, born about 4 years after the death of Christ:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3


Josephus also has a reference to Jesus' family:

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1


Now, regarding the first quote, there is a scholarly debate. Although much of the quote is accepted as legitimate, the manuscript which survived does appear to have been altered by a later copyist - there are sections, such as "he was the Christ," which are clearly part of a later Christian tradition. A probable reconstruction of the original paragraph is:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out."

Of additional note, the word translated as "startling" or "wonderful" also translates as "controversial." So, what we actually get from Josephus is this: That Jesus Christ did exist, that he was a relatively minor figure in his time who developed a loyal and lasting following (you have to keep in mind that this was written in the 70s AD, which was either right before or around the time that Christianity was rejected as a Jewish sect - it hadn't exploded into what it was going to become yet), that he was crucified at the orders of Pontius Pilate, and that his brother was later stoned to death.

So, what is lacking is corroborating evidence of the resurrection. But, the man himself certainly seemed to have existed - there is a corroborating source outside of the New Testament, although there is some controversy over it.

For more information, see this: http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm