Hi J,
First, in the part you quoted, note that Jesus first took him aside, away from the crowd.
Who were evidently watching what Jesus did.
There some people
My Bible says it was a multitude, not just 'some people'.
Now Jesus might have, like the televangelists, worked his wonders to the crowd, performed his miracle on cue and with lights and fireworks. But he didn't; instead he took the man aside.
He took the man aside but not out of view of the crowd, why else would verse 36 say 'And he charged them to tell no man'?
And in the lines after the part you quote mined, it goes on to say:
No quote mining mate, it is not my style. What I posted is well in context, there is nothing that contradicts my quote.
36Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.
So he tried to keep it quiet, to avoid the very attention you claim he was seeking.
This simply doesn't make sense. At the time of the miracle Jesus was obvioulsy the centre of attention, even when He took the man aside He didn't take him out of the crowd's view. Then He did the David Copperfield routine to make sure that the crowd knew it was His actions that caused the man to be cured.
Now you can claim, that Jesus knew that telling folk not to talk about it
Is this the folk that Jesus had taken the man aside from?
But that argument smacks of the old Catch 22, either way, whether he did the miracles publicly or in private, it seems you would make the same claims.
Not at all, if Jesus could cure the servant without even being present then there obviously was no need for Jesus to spit and put His fingers in the man's ears. He could have healed the man as the crowd was bringing him to Jesus, then they wouldn't have known for sure if it was Jesus who had cured him or not. But no, Jesus chose to say 'come on everyone, watch me, watch me, see what I can do'.
I simply don't believe the passage supports your assertions.
Read it again then.
Brian.