Do Christians actually want evidence?

[FreeTony]

1) There is sufficient evidence to believe the Jesus/God claims in the bible, therefore no faith* is required to believe.

You've skipped a step.

There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a real person and not a legend, and some basic facts about his life - that he was baptized by John, that he called disciples to follow him, and that he died on a cross and was buried in a wealthy person's tomb.

From there you can ask the logical questions - did he believe he was the son of God, and if so was he deluded, and did his disciples believe and accept him as the son of God and were they deluded? And of course, importantly, did he really raise from the dead? If he didn't raise from the dead then of course he's a false prophet. There is no counter evidence though that he didn't - and that's the important part.

I'm pretty sure that's not how history works. You can't claim something happened because there is no evidence it didn't, especially when the source you are using is something that has been written to support Christianity.

What is more telling is the complete lack of historical evidence from non-Christian sources at the time.