While there are many differences, the simplest is He described Himself as the great I AM.
Oh, well then, that clinches it.
While just 2 simple words, they express an eternal being that exists before and after time. How long did it take human minds to come up with I think, therefore I am.
I personally think you're reading far too much into this "I AM" bit. I've never seen how claiming "I AM" as an identifier is supposed to mean anything, let alone that the one saying it created an entire universe and is the only God in existence.
No statues or images needed or allowed, just laws to live by.
Images being banned might make the religion unusual but by no means factual. Religious laws were nothing new either.
Much more logical than the other gods of the time who spent their time feasting and squabbling among themselves, turning into animals and running around sleeping with woman.
How was it your savior got here again? Oh yes, because your deity impregnated a virgin. How is this different from the Greek and Roman deities impregnating a woman/virgin with the result of a demigod being produced?
Instead, a God who cares about humankind and wants to do what's best for them.
The victims of the genocides he apparently ordered would beg to differ.
Or anyone involved in any of the events listed
here.
Your original comment doubted his existance at all, it's good to see you have now conceded he did exist, just "not as described in the bible".
It's likely that the Biblical stories were based on an actual person but no, I don't believe he existed as he is depicted in the Bible. At best he was an apocalyptic preacher (likely one of many) who gained a cult following and was, possibly, crucified for some reason or other. I do not believe anything that was written about him in the Bible and nobody else in the entire area seems to have noticed him at all.
What would you consider evidence? Eye witness testamony?
Possibly. If it could be verified that the person actually was an eye witness and the document or documents could be authenticated in some way. Unfortunately, like I said, it seems everyone in the world failed to notice God incarnate except for a handful of people who can't even be shown to have existed themselves.
Documents talking about him?
Less useful. Anyone can write a book about a fictional character, or a person who's real whom they've never actually met.
Letters explaining his teachings?
Even less useful than documents mentioning him. I'm sure there are letters explaining the teachings of Vishnu too.
People willing to die for him?
As far as I'm aware it can't be shown that the Apostles, which is who I assume you're speaking of, existed. Even if all of them did exist and they all died for a belief it doesn't make it true. Many people die for beliefs that aren't true.
I'm happy with changed. So science (which is based on interpretation of observations) can modify itself without criticism,
It's not based on interpretation, it's based on repeatable experimentation among other things. As for criticism, that's precisely what scientists do to one another (or more accurately each other's ideas) incessantly. That's what peer review is for.
but religion (which is based on interpretations of scripture) isn't allowed to? Doesn't seem fair...
Science doesn't claim to get it's knowledge from the creator of the universe or an infallible book, now does it? If your God tells you something is so then it should be so. Unfortunately science often shows that that isn't the case.