Well, if we put all this together now, it appears you are saying that when Christ healed others, it was due to the Father's response to prayers from Christ's human nature. HOWEVER, when Christ arose, it was due to Christ's divine nature, somehow apart from the Father. That seems a little selective to me. :) Why is it wrong to say that the Godhead was responsible for the resurrection, or that the Godhead was involved with all the healings?
The Resurrection was in response to prayer of His human nature, FK; it was not an act of humility, or obedience, which was so essential in His earthly ministry. It was an act of His divine power.
He never doubted His Resurrection. There was no need to pray for that.
The Fathers who formulated the Creed were careful to stress that He rose and not to repeat +Paul's misleading words that He was raised.
If His healing were divine interventions of His own, then what would be the purpose of His human nature and ministry, FK? To show us that God can do anything? He didn't come to teach us that in order to believe we must see.
No, He came to enable His Apostles to walk in His steps, in perfect humility and obedience, so that even they can, by imitating Jesus, come to the Father. How did the Apostles heal if not through the purity of their prayers? Hocuspocus?
How could BEV Mary conceive if not through the purity of her complete submission to the will of God, not because she was forced, but of her own free will and free of any doubt, ego or pride?