Great, so at least we agree that you had no idea of what you were talking about when you compared scholars who accept the reliability of the Gospels (with regards to the relevant facts being proposed here) and Jesus mythicists. Please refrain from such ridiculous comparisons in the future.
This is true, but misleading. One might as well say that the New York Times is not a primary eyewitness account for almost everything they report on. That doesn’t mean we can’t reliably deduce what happened from reading it.
Quite a lot, actually, namely, the general argument about whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Historians are free to say that historical method prevents them from making a direct argument about the Resurrection in a peer-reviewed journal (as opposed to facts surrounding the Resurrection). That doesn’t prevent us as people from discussing the philosophical and theological implications of certain historical events.
Yes, there are scholars who don’t endorse claim #2. For example, Bart Ehrman thinks that Jesus was not buried in a rock tomb. But it’s not the case that there’s a consensus that #2 didn’t happen, either. Rather, there’s divided opinion, with strong arguments to support the historicity of the burial and empty tomb (see the relevant section in my resurrection article for links to more details.) In fact, Habermas himself surveyed the literature and found that about 75% of scholars support arguments for its historicity.
Still, this lack of unanimous consensus on the empty tomb makes #2 the weak link in the list of facts. It makes my case for the Resurrection not airtight. But I’m fine with that.
There’s a lot of good evidence for #3, btw. The ancient creed recorded and transmitted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is a very important piece of evidence.
So does this mean that even if claims #1 to #4 were unanimously agreed upon by scholars to have been historical fact, you would still deny the Resurrection could explain them, as that would be contrary to our observations today, that no dead person rises from the dead? I’m confused.
Finally, it seems that you are still struggling to understand the nature of this two-step argument. I can grant that historical method alone cannot prove that Jesus was resurrected. As Jon Garvey mentioned, historians no longer judge such supernatural claims. However, that does not stop you or I from judging the implications of certain historical facts, even if our conclusions wouldn’t be proper to put in a professional journal, for example.