I think you are mistaken here. You are right to say that most mainstream historians would prima facie refuse to consider miraculous events as something that could ever be taken seriously as historically verifiable events.† But plenty of serious, non-Christian historians have thought it worth investigating the resurrection accounts in order to provide alternative explanations.
Which takes us back to Veronica’s point. The reason why we are talking about the resurrection is because she said religion never makes claims about actual phenomena but only deals with opinions, feelings and morality (my parsing of her case). Yet, in contrast, the New Testament writers thought the Resurrection was a historical event on which Christianity stood or fell. They believed they had good evidence and witnesses. In many cases died for that conviction.
So whether they were right or wrong, whether modern historians think they can provide better explanations or not, the point stands: not all religious claims are confined to “opinions, feelings and morality.”
† A presupposition that has more to do with intellectual fashion and post-Humean philosophy than it does with the investigation of actual events.
