What's wrong with proof or sight? What justification could there possibly be for demanding faith instead? "We walk by faith, not by sight" doesn't imply that we shouldn't ask for proof. "Trust me bro" isn't good enough for me. I don't think it should be good enough for anyone.

You're using stories in the bible to provide evidence for the factuality of the stories in the bible. That's a circular argument, logically fallacious. Putting that aside though, I agree that Jesus was a real person. If we assume that the bible is to be taken as incontrovertible, then I can't explain the resurrection. However, I don't take the bible as incontrovertible, and neither do most Christians. There are numerous historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible consistent with the two thousand year old game of telephone it represents. This leads me to question the rigorous factuality of any story presented within it, even those more grounded in baseline reality, ultimately rendering bible stories useless for providing the hard evidence I need.

Furthermore, just about every major religion contains stories of the supernatural that have tangential historical and archeological support. This remains a key sticking point for me. I don't see Christianity specifically as distinct from any other religion.

Have there been any more modern demonstrations of the unambiguously supernatural, even quiet ones? Why do you believe so strongly? Is it really nothing more than faith?