Avery Dulles clearly states that Kasper treats of and affirms the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Also sitetest has told me he has read the book and not found it heretical - something impossible if he truly denied the resurrection and divinity of Our Lord as you have falsely claimed.
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition.
Avery Dulles was writing a book review, not a theological piece on Kasper's odd notion of a Resurrection that lacks historicity. Harrison is not reviewing a book, he is writing a refutation.