As a follower of the Perennial Philosophy, you are inclined to the belief that Christiaity is only one in a long line of faiths which are rooted in, and reveal aspects of, said philiosophy. You are thus prone to viewing sacred texts as having both an 'exoteric' (for general consumption) and an 'esoteric' (for initiates only) reading.

Matthew, as a Christian, views his own faith as a singular revelation of Truth, and must therefore regard the Bible as either literal truth, an accretion of myths and 'tall tales' around a core of truth, or truth conveyed by allegory.

Given your different approaches, different reading and so forth, a question about the historicity of Jesus is always going to get tangled up in your other views.

Just as my view is to regard Jesus' historicity as 'likely but not proven' and to note the common elements between the central narrative of Christianity and the vegetation cults of the Mediterranean.

Nobody is starting from the same place, so you really have to lay out the parameters of the debate before you begin.