SeaBreeze: The consensus among most all scholars who publish in this area are several facts surrounding he Resurrection of Jesus.
You are linking to an article titled "Twelve Undeniable Facts That Prove The Resurrection." Is this what "most all scholars" in this field accept as a standard of evidence? An article that attempts to use the Bible --and only the Bible-- to corroborate claims from the Bible?
You mention Habermas's 'minimal facts approach.' Most of those are also claims which have not been corroborated. But let's accept his claims for a moment: we end up with a man named Jesus who preached and built up a following and who was executed by the Romans. His followers then claimed that they saw him alive after his death. The "most all scholars" you refer to accept that his followers made this claim- they do not accept that those claims are true.
As for Ehrman: you don't think Ehrman is claiming that Jesus was resurrected, do you? He accepts that the Biblical character is based on a real person, not that this person did anything aside from what any other normal human could do. I neither accept nor deny that a preacher named Jesus might be the actual inspiration for the Bible character. I am pointing out that your claims regarding his divinity are just that: claims, not facts. I am pointing out that your evidentiary standard for these claims is very low, and this hurts your case.
I'll let a Christian explain just a few of the problems with Habermas's approach: