> I'm not really interested in Apollonius
Why not? He lived about the same time as Jesus, and was reputed to have pulled off much the same set of miracles including the resurrection thing.
> what must have transpired to make this the commonly accepted view of historical fact?
The religion succeeded. Same reason why Mohammad and Buddha are "accepted" to have done a series of things that today in the west we'd find highly unlikely.
Why do you accept Jesus but not Apollonius?
Apollonius is not relevant to this topic and we have enough excuses for distraction without it.
We're discussing the basic facts of Jesus's existence.
And your position is that historians accept his existence because Christianity survived.
Would Thor's existence be accepted by historians if Greek mythology survived?
The Assyrian religion did not survive, yet historians agree Sargon existed.
Your premise holds only within believers of a religion. It does not outside, and it fails to explain why non-Christian historians hold that Jesus did exist.
Do you have a better theory?
Apollonius has been used by freethinkers to muddy the truth about the historicity of Jesus' life. Actually Apollonius lived a little later than Jesus, 2-98 AD, Jesus lived approximately 1BC - 32 AD. His life story which you are relying upon is based upon an account by Philostratus, who was not an eyewitness of Apollonius, wrote his biography anyway in about 215 AD, over one hundred years removed from the events, based upon hearsay. HIs 'miracles' are not compatable with those of Jesus. Philostratus', work is generally regarded as a religious work of fiction.
Contrast this with the documentary evidence for Jesus who was written by eyewitnesses, or in the case of Josephius nearly contemporary. The Gospel of Mark was written within 40 years of Jesus' death. Infact, most scholars have the Gospels finished no later than 90 AD (sixty years after the event) with many much sooner (50-70 AD). If Q and Matthew and Lukes sources are valid, then the written evidence pushes much much closer. Paul wrote within 30 years of Jesus' death. This is equivalent to making up a story about the Kennedy assassination and that he came back to life too. We know that didn't happen because we have the eyewitness testamony which would instantly debunk such a story. Christianity had to face the same standard in the first generation, and their chief antagonists of the era - the Jewish religious leadership, was unable to disprove the accounts. Paul's strong assertion that you refered earlier to in 1 Corinthians of the physical presence at that time of eyewitnesses (remember Paul, incase you didn't know, wrote this mid-50's AD) for doubters to interview and challenge. This aspect is totally lacking in the writings of Philostratus.
Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? There is far more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar. Documentary evidence for Caesar is hundreds of years after the event. Throw out the evidence for Jesus, then you must throw out the evidence for Caesar.
As far as the 'resurrection thing' the question boils down to which account is better supported Apollonius or Jesus. According to Philostratus "Concerning the manner of his death, if he did die, the accounts are various.". However, for Jesus' manner of death and His resurrection, the accounts are uniform and supporting - not various
. The foundation message of the first generation Christian church was the resurrection and the testamony of the eyewitnesses. This testamony is absent from the Apollonius myth.