No they don't become rational, FK. They are accepted in spite of our inability to understand them. Thus, we accept resurrection of dead people. Is that rational? Our reason rejects it, but we accept it spiritually.
Actually, with the premise of an omnipotent God, my reason is just fine with resurrections and other miracles. I believe these things literally happened and were not Biblical metaphors. They are perfectly reasonable and make perfect sense, given an all-powerful God. To rationally hold otherwise is to deny omnipotence.
Usually behind all these fancy miracles that are hard to believe and impossible to understand, lies a divine message the story is meant to convey. Ignoring the fancy details (the devil is in the details!), you can capture the meaning of that message without resorting to superstition.
Why do you think some of these are superstition, and never really happened? Do you have reason to believe God couldn't perform them, or that He wouldn't perform them? I have none. Does 3 days in the belly of a fish offend your reason? Child's play for an omnipotent God. It is perfectly reasonable.
That argument carries about as much weight as Mohammad's claim that God dictated Koran to him word by word. A psychotic can claim with equal conviction that he is Napoleon, FK. It's all quite "reasonable" when you dispense with reality.
Things just don't happen the way they are described in the Bible, some people's fancy notwithstanding.