I think that amount of believably we allocate to any given claim would be proportional to how unique such claim would be. "A brown house" isn't really that unusual of a claim to suspend one's belief. It makes very little existential difference whether your house is brown or yellow, and I've actually experienced brown houses... especially since I live in one. Thus your claim isn't a big deal.
Now, if you would have claimed that your house is made of cheese... that's an entirely different claim that I would withhold my belief and demand some evidence, because it's not my general experience to see that houses are made of cheese.
I hope you understand the difference... although seemingly you don't so far.
Again, the amount of trust is generally allotted by how common is the claim to our experience. There are plentiful brown houses. I don't know any that are made of cheese. Perhaps they are, but it's not the same type of claim.
A claim about resurrecting people and supernatural beings... in light of our general everyday experience would be like claiming to live in a house made out of cheese, as opposed to a claim of living in a brown house.
NO. NO. AND NO. A claim is NEVER an evidence of truth 
, and that's where the majority of confusion resides, because most of Christians in my experience end up confusing the claim and the evidence.
An example for evidence for a brown house would be a photo, or a piece of the siding. In context of a court we may accept the testimony of impartial witnesses to confirm the claim, especially if they are experts in some field that they specialize in.
All of these are not the same as you merely saying "my house is brown and that's the truth". Yes, the claim may reflect the truth, but we are talking about methods that lead to most accurate representation of reality that guards against various fallacies inherent in our human experience, whether these are intentional or not.
You are confusing the model of reality as it exists in your head and "undeniable truth". In many instances individual perception fails, especially when it comes to recollecting things from memory. Memory is generally representational (not photographic) and our mind tends to fill the gaps with our past or present experiences and beliefs. There are plentiful research done on the subject matter:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
The problem is that you haven't demonstrated a very good grasp or proper understanding of logic and reason so far. You have conflated claim with evidence. You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between common claims and extraordinary ones, and it's essential issue at the core of what I'm referring to.
NONE of the extra-ordinary Christian claims are undeniable, because these exist as a claim. Biblical narrative is a one giant CLAIM. Yes, SOME historical parts of it is in line with contemporary evidence, but when it comes to evidence for extraordinary claims ... it falls short.
YES. It can exist as a possibility that one accepts based on some line of evidence, and as a BELIEF. But you seem to conflate the notion of "undeniable proofs", which tend to exist in mathematics or self-referential framework alone and in scope of self-defined logic... and ontology, of which we can merely built models that are probabilistic in scope of our experience.
For example, we can say that it's undeniable that apple is a fruit. Why? Because it's internally defined proposition. We've defined what an apple is. And we define what a fruit is, and then we classify and equivocate.
You can't do that with external claims that are yet to be validated. I can't say that Barak Obama is an alien from Mars without presenting some evidence other than some conspiracy blog that writes about some story about encountering Obama's true alien from, and thus blowing the lid on this whole thing.
While it may be "possible" in some minutely remote version of some reality that there is a life of Mars, and one of the life-forms decided to infiltrate... it's not an observable reality that's likely in scope of our experience. We've been to Mars and we don't find any intelligent life there. And Obama doesn't seem to demonstrate any extra-ordinary alien tendencies.
The reason why it's prevalent in Christianity today is primarily because we are not trained to distinguish real from imaginary in certain aspects of our lives. For example, sometimes we may imagine certain situations to be much worse than these are, when in reality it's not that bad. Our bodies tend to experience the stress of this imaginary situation as though it's real.
And religion tends to invoke "acts of God" from certain subconscious manifestations of our own mind. Most of the people are simply not educated enough to understand that we always "speak" to ourselves by exchanging information between conscious and unconscious part of our nervous system. Religion tends to conflate it with "presence of God", or "Voice of God", or "Holy Spirit moving", etc. We have dreams about possible realities. We have creative thoughts that we think are coming "not from us", precisely because there's more to "us" than our conscious experience. Much of the religious experience is predicated on training people to think that unconscious part of them is "God-speak", and that's dishonest.
In short, your logic is weak and it has failed so far.
