LOL, he called her a dog (the most insulting thing one can call someone in the Middle East).
And in that same Book of Matthew (10:6), he defines what the mission to the house of Israel is: not the Gentile nor the Samaritans. So, it's pretty clear he didn't concern himself with Samaritans and "dogs", because that's not what the Jewish meshiyah is all about.
”Thou shalt love thy relative as thyself”; others can go fish. Is that it?
From the point of view of the OT, yes. The universal appeal of Christianity was never taught by Jesus, at least not based on the synoptic Gospel accounts. That is a Pauline innovation trying to sell a Jewish sect to gullible and superstitious Greeks seeking mystery religions.
Read Luke 10:25-37 and you will know who your neighbor is
Luke is introducing the Golden/Silver Rule and redefining the Jewish concept. You will notice that the cross reference to Luke 10:29 is none other than Luke himself! So, in other words, a person who never knew or heard Jesus speak, who by his own account collected hearsay legendary tales about Jesus is the only one who is "witnessing" this alleged conversation. never mind that Luke Gospel exists in two version, a short and a long one...so take your pick.
Also this whole thing about loving your neighbor as yourself is taken out of context of the OT verse (Lev 19:18) which in full reads:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Notice that it is says "thy people" ('am in Hebrew, meaning kindred, compatriots, etc.). Obviously, Christians dropped that part by design and turned it into a "universal" concept to suit their agenda. How could Paul, and Luke following him, include "thy people" when they were sleling the Christians etc to non-Jews?!? Of course, the meaning of the term had to be changed, as is the case with numerous other OT concepts, to bring it in line with the doctrinal goals they were peddling abroad.
Also notice that this obligatory "love" in Lev 19:18 is not a Golden Rule of Luke's narrative, but a prohibition, or mitzvah, a commandment of omission.
In other words, it doesn't command you to help but not to take revenge on your kindred. This is night and day what Luke is saying. And, speaking of Luke, verse 10:28 is also taken out of context out of Lev 18:5, which doesn't say 'do this and you shall live, but
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD.
Live in them, not live. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the degree of corruption that took place in order to create this new religion. The falsifying work that went into it can only be compared to something the Mormons pulled 1800 years later.
Not so, according to Alister McGrath (see In the Beginning).
Why should I give Alister McGrath more weight than, say, Richard Dawkins?
It seems that the general verdict of biblical scholars and historians (including McGrath) is that they (the translators) were eminently successful in fulfilling their mission
Either you don't know the history of the KJV or don't want to know it. The very same eminent scholars who completed this somewhat forced translation admitted that it was full of errors.
All this gibberish you cite doesn't change the fact that the terms for "neighbor" in Hebrew, Greek and Slavonic mean kindred
Your last posts seem obsessed with the spectre of fraud. For you, fraud must be a matter of deep concern. There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.” Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say). To pretend otherwise flies in the face of what every Science Hawk on this forum has ever declared.
McGrath, who holds a PhD both in Biochemistry and in Theology, on the other hand has the integrity to acknowledge and write about the difficulty of translation and does not pretend perfection. He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.” Or, that every difference in translation can be called an “error” by one faction or another. McGrath makes no bones about the various conflicts motivated by sectarian and political calculations which have made understanding Holy Scripture the more difficult (an understanding shared by many Christians, but ignored by their critics because it reduces the number of their – the critics’ – opportunity to cry ‘ERROR!’).
Despite the skepticism of our friend James C. Bennett and his certainty that I am afflicted with faux humility, I am truly a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship (among other things). So I rely on the efforts of scholars like Alister McGrath in such matters. Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you. McGrath writes in benevolence with the view to promote understanding. Dawkins writes in malice with a view to promote denigration.
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
Oh yeah! we may be sure that Jesus and Christianity will get a fair and true hearing from you.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."