The distinction is that in all documents besides the Bible he is named Jesus from Nazareth and not "Christ" wich does make a big difference im this discussion.

The remaining comment of yours reads a bit like a conspiracy theory, historical documents are indeed scientific evidence, when checked against fraud and forgery, all together are proof. You make it sound like you think the someone made up a person and forged documents that are scientifically proven older than Christianity. There is physical evidence as well, but after all that time its pretty vague from my knowledge.

I by all means am absolutely not religious, but its a fact that the person Jesus from Nazareth did exist, and that his written down life is very consistent and plausible, can be checked against other sources from different parties of interest.

Why his "resurrection" is of interest, is because the the crypt was empty and doesn't necessarily have to have been staged on purpose. Its less likely that a looker like did take part in that thing.

Torture back then is a loose term, it was most likely a whip and punching, most other methods where not necessarily used. And even though infections are a bad thing, especially during that time, most people actually survived, there are some sources that describe the torturing of criminals for confessions, it was likely pretty sanitary compared to the middle ages, especially because they actually did disinfect the wounds with... Vinegar and Herbs, wich is also the stuf he was given hanging on the cross, we know for a fact that there are herbs growing in that area that are natural sedatives and some are very strong.

The description of looks may or may not be accurate, especially because nobody expects a dead person to just appear in front of someone. Furthermore, days of hanging on the cross and spending time in a cave will change the appearance of a person, so. That is actually a pice of evidence with lower credibility and can be neglected.