Otherwise we'd have to get into an argument who "Jesus" even was (assuming we accept the majority interpretation of history that there was someone who at least vaguely matches the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth -- specifics aside).
That's not really a counter argument, as what qualifies as "biblical account" was decided many hundred years after the historical events.
That said, I was really just making a witty remark. I have no reason to treat biblical accounts as factual (especially given the long and complex history of why biblical canon is what it is and the unreliability of narrators with questionable identities who weren't even alive at the time of the events they're describing).
The direct speech of Jesus in the bible is not necessary the literal word of Jesus of Nazareth the (possible) historical person, but under various interpretations of Christianity it is the literal word of Jesus Christ, the (fictional) character in the biblical narrative. The only difference is that Christians generally seem to think the biblical character is an exact description of the historical person -- for which there doesn't seem to be any reliable basis.
Not to be a pedant, but what literally happened is someone, likely well after after Jesus' lifetime, claimed Jesus said this and that. No one actually knows what Jesus literally said.