::My point was that the New Testament can't provide evidence for its own account  by definition, it can only provide the Biblical Jesus story (which isn't the point of this article). To look for the historical Jesus, an agreement must be made between the Christian Bible and something else. 

 ::Further, the third and fourth sentences of the article, are highly problematic/POV. The first of these: 
 :::The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential. 
 ::is unsupported in this article and arguably misleading. Again, by definition, Christians are primarily concerned with the Biblical Jesus  there is no burden upon them to learn historical details. 
 ::The fourth sentence: 
 :::Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] 
 ::claims to give the opinions of many scholars, but the evidence upon which this detailed claim is made is not presented. This approach is against the "Undue Weight" and "Let the facts speak for themselves" sections of WP:NPOV. Again, since this article only gives Biblical sources to support these features of Jesus' life that are described Biblically, this line reaffirms the "unsupported/unverified/unsourced" nature of this article. 
 ::