Reliable history in the Bible

Another point is that the cross could very well have been a symbol from another religion. Bacchus is supposed to have used the cross as a holy symbol also.

While the speeches are unique, the teachings are not. Those values taught are an eclectic mix of various sects that were about. Some of which seems to be from the Essenes, others from the Hillel school of pharisaic thought. [qs] And the people who wrote the specific gospels were unable to write something unique to promote their specific theology?Many of the lessons are contradictory. Some show a Jesus of peace, others , if you read it plain, show a more militant Jesus (which of course, is interpreted Spiruitually, rather than literally).There is a big difference between 'Go and sin no more', and "I come not for peace by with a sword".You also have to , in your musings, take into account the gnostic point of view of Jesus. There are so many contradictory beliefs about Jesus, and then there was the 'filter' of convention that the writings went through (via the Council of Nicea.Because of the various different view points in the surviving texts, I am more likely to see the Jesus presented is a composite of a number of people,sects.

The concept of baptism, and they were heavy believers in the coming of a messiah for one. They reached out to the poor. They believed in a ressurrection (abet a spiritual one, not a physical one). They were concerned with the battle of between "light and darkness', a concept
mimiced in Corthians, 1 peter, the gospel of John,and 1 john.Hillel was recored in not only the talmud, but was extensively quoted in the Pirqe Avot. He is the founder of the 'house of hillel'Josephus talks about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I being Hillel's great grandson.As for the 'editing' of the Council of Nicea, they rejected all the gnostic gospels. Such gospels as 'The gospels of Thomas', and "the sophia of Jesus Christ" were eliminated. Apparently, the Gospel of John was modified somewhat to make it a non-gnositic book (In the 4th century, euribus used the Gospel of John as a book against the Gnostics, yet another tritarian , Epiphanius, argued against it, saying it was written by the Gnostic priest Cerinthus.Then there was secret mark, and The secret book of James, and a whole range of gnostic books that were rejected, and attempted to be destroyed.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

On the other hand, there is a lot of contradictions, known interpolitions, the fact that the historical record of Pilate deviates signifigently from the Gospel's presentation of him, the definate theological bias of the descriptions of Jesus, and the fact the description of the trial goes against Jewish law, and Roman law.If there was a 'historical' Jesus, I personally think he would bear very little resemblence that the description in the Gospels give him.
It appears to me that the 'legend' of Jesus developed quite much like the 'legend' of King Arthur.I suspect that if Jospehus was correct when it comes to the timeframe that John the Baptist was executed, and the Christian tradition that Jesus was born after John the Baptist, there is the potential that Jesus was the 'Samaratian messiah' who was executed by Pilate in the
"samaratian massacre' in 36 c.e. This is the incident that caused Pilate to be removed from Judah.Jospehus had John the Baptist being exceuted in 34 or 35 c.e. The Christian tradition has him being executed 28 or 29 c.e.