Was Apollonius of Tyana the Historical Jesus?

This is an interesting controversy. It allowed me some time to examine the historical facts of the existence of these men, their accomplishments and their legacies. Clearly Jesus wins over Apollonius in name recognition if that was the ultimate goal.

Historians argue whether Apollonius was born in the same timeline as Jesus (some placing Apollonius birth date to the proximity of Joshua of Nazareth (later known to be Jesus).

It is obvious that we have a task here to show;
1) Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a historical figure,
2) And also show that he was or was not actually the same person as historian refereed as Apollonius of Tyana.

So what is the truth? Ultimate facts and proof will not be forthcoming as with any ancient texts there will be a room for debate, question and interpretations of texts.

The problem is that historians without any faith based bias will have to reject any mentions of the gospels which are not written by contemporaries but disciples.
Here we have the “evidence” of Paul, whose letters start ~ 50 CE+. Paul not only never met Jesus, but makes the following statement in Galatians: [11] “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. [12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. “ Isn’t this a hint coming from Paul that all the talk of Jesus was a talk about the principle, not a real man?

The Historical Jesus

“I tell you the truth. The person that believes in me will do the same things I have done. Yes! He will do even greater things than I have done. “John 14:12

It is speculated that Jesus (the historical figure) had lived about 100 years before the Biblical one. This is why there are no only little traces of him in texts other than the disciples etc) Biblical scholars are befuddled even today that Apollonius and Pythagoras had so many more outside references of him, than Jesus.
So, the whole biblical story of the crucifixion is perhaps a metaphor of the ascension and Christ principle.
The real rabbi, Joshua that the Talmud has actual references was a sorcerer and was killed (probably stoned to death.
It is very likely that historical, Talmud figure, Joshua and the Christ principle was bound together in the Bible as we know it.
However, if the historical Jesus had lived and crucified in the Biblical manner or stoned to death according to the Jewish law, he most likely he had done something of murderous in his past life to deserve this fate. Remember there is murder and there is spectator to murder both equally wrong.

Whether Jesus died on the cross, as the Bible says or was the Bible story a metaphor is not that relevant in my view. The principle of ascension and Jesus teaching; that all men can do (and even do greater things) is what matters. There is no need for the clergy, and definitely no need to give money to televangelists.

My take on this and it is based on my intuition rather than historical facts. That Jesus actually lived albeit ~100 years prior to the biblical Jesus (as Madame Blavatsky suggested) and he was born sometime around the spring as a Pisces teacher. His identity as the Christos, the Christ principle is more important than the actual man.
Apollonius was a contemporary of Jesus and more of a historical figure than the mystical Jesus. His existence was also the proof that anyone can achieve the Christ level just by rising up to it and follow the examples already shown.