Hardly according to the gospel of kosta. Koine Greek phrase ei me literally means if not, and is routinely translated as except. In fact, if you look up the definition of the word but, as a conjunction it means if not, except. As a preposition it means except, as an adverb it means only.
Drawn out of context, this passage at a glance would indeed seem to say that Christ was sent only to the “lost sheep” of Israel. yet this reading arouses more questions than answers. Why, then, did Christ depart to Sidon and Tyre, well outside of Israel?
Matthew 10:5-6 clearly defines what "lost sheep of the house of Israel means:
5Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
So, whatever he was doing in Tyre and Sidon was not part of his mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Why was He seen so often teaching and speaking in the company of publicans and other persons of lowly status?
Low status is not the same as being a non-Jew (a Gentile) or a Samaritan (a Jewish apostate). Publicans were simply despised but they were also Jews, and probably counted into the "lost sheep" more than others.
Why did Christ not send away the woman of Canaan (said by Mark to be a Greek and a Syrophenician), choosing instead to engage her in a conversation philosophic?
He told her that he was only sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But she was persistent.
A conversation to which the woman apparently gave sufficient reply to move Christ to accede to her plea.
Apparently because she was willing to accept her "canine status" and get some crumbs.
An answer may be found in Mark 7:27
Mark's account is significantly different form Matthew's. First Matthew is supposed to be an eyewitness, and Mark is not. Second, the woman is described not "Greek" but as Gentile, of Syrophoenician background. In other words, of Semitic origin (Greeks are not Semites). Third, his answer regarding the children being filled first is odd considering the problem the woman presented to him.
All she asked for was for Jesus to heal her daughter. And when he made the reference to dogs eating the children's' crumbs, and she apparently accepted her "canine status", he healed her daughter. Mark makes no mention of him praising her "faith." Nor does she call Jesus the Son of David, as in Matthew.
Now, Matthew's account is also problematic as it raises the question of his familiarity with the geography of the place. (Now don't forget, he is supposedly writing "under inspiration" and therefore inerrant).
In verse 7:31 Mark states
31Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis.
This is strange, just looking at the map of Tyre and Sidon and the routes available at that time. If he was in Tyre, then going to Sidon to get to Galilee was like traveling from Atlanta, Ga, to Richmond, Va, to get to Florida! Besides, Decapolis is way to the East of Galilee!
So, why should I take either of the two accounts as "factual" given that they essentially differ a great deal and seem to me more as hearsay legendary tale versions then eyewitness accounts?
Therefore, tell us learned master, what is your translation of the same passage in the Greek Orthodox Church NT
It reads that children should be staffed first, and that one shouldn't throw their food to the dogs.
What of the other Greek testaments? The Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics? Or, the Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)? The Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics? The Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)?
The other Greek Testaments are copies of the fifth century AD Codex Alexandrinus (CA), the official Greek Orthodox Church Bible. It differs from the earliest surviving versions (4th century) in many ways (otherwise known as variants). Textus Receptus in particular was a bad copy of CA, based on some late 14th century manuscripts, with some parts actually missing. They were "filled in" with Vulgate verses badly retro translated into Greek!
The Majority Text consists of a large number of manually copied manuscripts, which represent the majorly of extant Greek texts. That doesn't mean they are free of errors or contradictions or internally consistent. There are also Syrian manuscripts, copies from Greek, which complicate the picture a bit more.
How many Greek NT texts are there, anyway?) Are they all the product of conniving priests? Or, at least, incompetent boobs?
Thousands. Some have intentionally altered passages or even added verses such as 1 Tim 3:16, while others have merely unintentional copyist errors.
Scholars say that Christ was escaping the wrath of angry Jews who rejected the “bread” he offered (his “mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” as it were). But since you admit no knowledge of why Christ went to Tyre and then to Sidon, you can hardly assume that He expressly “went through” Sidon to get to Galilee, save it does give you the opportunity to cast doubt on the account of Matthew. Similarly, were the accounts by Mark and Matthew to be identical in every detail, then you would have the opportunity to allege that the “suspicious” similarity of the two texts is a sure sign of a fraudulent conspiracy among corrupt priests. ‘Tis a shopworn propaganda practice, but that’s what propagandists do, and that’s how propaganda works.
[The Greek Orthodox Church NT] “reads that children should be staffed first, and that one shouldn't throw their food to the dogs.”
That’s very similar to what Mark 7:27 and Matthew 15:26 read. But it develops that we dogs need not content ourselves with the crumbs that fall from the table of the lost children of Israel. Since they chucked the whole loaf in the trash, all we dogs need do is go dumpster diving and we can partake of the loaf rather than just the crumbs (with due apologies to my Jewish friends for the sarcasm).
[Dawkins] “said the question whether God exists (or doesn't exist) is one of the most important questions that we have to answer. Then —referring to the question asked—he said it was a scientific question and his answer was no (i.e. that by mere understanding of science one cannot say that God is a delusion).”
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
Dawkins states the proposition (the question whether there exists a supernatural creator), qualifies the proposition as scientific, and gives his answer (no).
”Dawkins has a peculiar, somewhat convoluted, style of speaking and writing”
The only convoluted style evident here is your torturous attempt to demonstrate that Dawkins didn’t say what he clearly did say.