In Acts, Paul was blinded by God and healed by God. Ananaias did pray over Paul when God told him to do so.
That's true of all biblical miracles though - there's no indication that Jesus' are any different.
The blind man had been blind from birth, and even he knew that only one from God could do this. This does not point to Jesus' divinity straight out, but it does raise some strong implications.
I wouldn't say it points to Jesus' divinity
at all! All biblical prophets are presented as being from God and as performing miracles, when they perform them, through divine power. It doesn't at all mean that they are divine. I don't see why Jesus' miracles should be any different. In the story in John 9, the formerly blind man says he thinks Jesus is a prophet, not that he's divine. This story is also notable in that Jesus is presented as performing the miracle in a quasi-magical way, involving the application of mud to the person's eyes and the need for washing. To my mind that would detract from any suggestion of divinity, since an omnipotent God should not require such means to accomplish his ends.
One striking thing that I find on searching for this is that Jesus is the only biblical character who heals people who are blind from birth, and there are a number of times he does it. So perhaps there's some significance to it. But still I would say you're reading rather too much into it.
Raising from the dead is not strong since Jews held somewhat to the ability of the soul to stay around after the body expired. Calling the soul back in would be a miracle, but not a great one.
First, this is not something I have heard, and I would say it's more of a Greek belief than a Jewish one (the idea of a soul that survives death is Greek rather than Hebrew, and Greek authors such as Plato thought that ghosts were souls that were still hanging around near the body instead of leaving properly). Of course that doesn't mean
some Jews couldn't have thought this, because there were strong hellenistic influences on some forms of Judaism. But obviously not all Jews would have thought it since, in Jesus' time, there was a wide variety of beliefs about life after death, as the opposed views of the Pharisees and Sadducees illustrates.
Second, El Mac's question was about whether Jesus' miracles are evidence
to us for his divinity, not whether his contemporaries would have taken them as evidence of divinity. Even if it's true that his contemporaries wouldn't have thought raising the dead was such a great miracle (which I'm not convinced by anyway - otherwise why does John present the raising of Lazarus as the final straw for Jesus' enemies?), I think we can agree that
we would consider it pretty impressive, and more so than merely making the blind see. But still not as evidence for divinity, I'd say.
How does the Torah, the Gospels, and the Quran compare?
In what way? I'm unlikely to be able to give much of an answer, though, given that I know little about the Torah and almost nothing about the Quran.
I believe you have said that you are agnostic. If this is still true, what sort of evidence would convince you personally, beyond REASONABLE doubt that there is a God and cause you to discard agnosticism? I don't say beyond ANY doubt because I don't think the existence of God could ever be "proved" beyond any and all possible doubt.
I suppose some kind of dramatic self-revelation of God, involving very impressive miracles that would be near-impossible to explain naturalistically. E.g. an enormous booming voice and words appearing on the sky or something of that kind. Religious experiences - that is experiences apparently caused by, or even of, God, are surely the most psychologically convincing reasons to believe in God; but they're only
reasonable in the way you suggest if God really is the best explanation for them. So an experience that would fall into that category would have to be a very dramatic and otherwise inexplicable one.
What was the conception of angels in those days, and did Jesus's teachings modify the thinking about angels in the early church fathers? In the passage above, the author is clearly using angels as a reference point, so there had to be a common idea, no?
That's not something I know much about, but my understanding is that there was a pretty complete and elaborate angelology within Judaism by the time of Jesus. The books of Enoch, for example, have quite a lot to say about it. So Jesus and the early Christians alike more or less took over the idea of angels, and I don't think changed it much.
How have scientific discoveries about the physiological mechanisms of our thoughts and emotions entered into discussions about the nature of free will and the soul among modern Christian thinkers?
On the soul, most modern Christian thinkers had largely given up on that idea before any significant physiological discoveries were made, I think. On free will, I'm not sure. Certainly the discoveries you mention have, as far as I can tell, made relatively little impact on
philosophical discussions of the matter, because philosophers seem mostly to be aware that they're not really very relevant. I don't know if theologians have realised this!
Plotinus -- do you know of any Christian teachers, groups, sects, or denominations of note that viewed procreation as bad, or celibacy as mandatory, for Christians as a whole? (I'm not talking about for select groups like Roman Catholic priests.) I'm aware of the Cathar heresy as well as the Shakers. Are there any others that you know of?
Yes, I'm sure that some gnostic groups were probably like this, although we don't know the details. Also, it may well have been the case that mainstream early Christianity in Syria required celibacy from all Christians, although again this is uncertain. The ancient Christians tended to think that sex was generally bad and avoided it even among married couples, but the Syrians were more extreme when it came to asceticism.
How did the Jews in antiquity measure the passage of days? Many times in the gospels Jesus says he will rise after three days.
Now since Jesus died before sundown on Friday and was raised on Sunday, I'm still having problems finding three days. Is the answer that there is no day zero as we might think of it nowadays? Thus, Friday would be the first day, Saturday the second, and Sunday the third. If not, was this found peculiar to early Christians? (If someone today said I'll see you in three days, I certainly wouldn't expect them a scant 36 hours later.)
But those passages don't say he would rise after three days. They say he would rise "on the third day". That's not the same thing. Friday was the first day, Saturday the second, and Sunday the third.
After the 4 century, what non-abrahamic religion do you think has had the most influence on Christian theology? I know Hinduism had a pretty big role on 19th century American philosophy, would you say that's it?
I think it would depend very much on what part of the world you're talking about. Confucianism has had a big influence on (some forms of) Chinese Christianity; Buddhism has had a big influence on (some forms of) Japanese Christianity; Hinduism has had a big influence on (some forms of) Indian Christianity; tabu has had a big influence on (some forms of) Pacific Christianity; "fetishism" has had a big influence on (some forms of) African Christianity. And all of these forms have had theologians who have sought to systematise the influence by giving a rigorous account of Christianity in terms drawn from the other culture or religion. That is one of the interesting things about Christianity - how it has fragmented and adapted to very different cultures, much more than (say) Islam has done.
What is the question you least like being asked?
Any question that shows that someone hasn't at least thought a bit about it.