Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

Not because you say it is. If there are no personal details, the term "composite" is inappropriate for Paul. Paul was what my post was talking about.

Well, sure, nothing is anything because I say so.  Nevertheless, the character of christ or jesus in magic book is called a composite character because the term describes the character found in the text.  Multiple authors, multiple and divergent descriptions of the character - all coming together in the one.  Like streams into a river, the pauline texts being one of those streams.  It's conceivable, as well, that pauls christ or jesus was itself a composite character, narrative details derived from more than one source or real person in pauls life.  Consider a character in one of stephen kings novels.  There may be one or many different people the author has in mind when fleshing out what this character will be, will do, or what they would say on the page.  

I don't assume that at all. And the subject at hand, in your assertion, that PAUL's Jesus was a composite character.
It was not. There are no personal details about his Jesus/Christ.

A general we.  We..as in, the people searching for the historical jesus assume there is one to find in the first place.

Nope. Prove it. Not from Paul they don't. In fact almost universally they wonder why there are no personal details at all.

Seems silly to me, too..but they do.

Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel][/url]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

I'll suggest again that you misunderstand. I'm not arguing with you, and do not disagree with anything you've put in your responses. I'm running with the implicit assumption of hj research and asking who, then, is the real man these many authors, including paul, would have been describing. Further, which -one- of them, is supposed to be the -real- hj.