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.
You don't need scholars for that. Chapters 14 and 15 of Matthews make that clear. Whether that is the true reason or not is a different story.
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
No one knows the reason he went to Tyre, or even if he ever did go there. You assume that Mat thew's story is true. I don't. I take everything in the Bible with a grain of salt.
As for going through Sidon on the (roundabout) way to Galilee, that's Mark's account. Surely you believe Mark too, don't you, even if it doesn't make sense?
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.
Yes, that would be the case if the Bible we were an actual human eyewitness account. However, believers claim the Bible was written by God, using human authors as his writing tools. In that case one would expect God to tell the same story to each and every author. But that's not the case. If the Bible is truly the words of God, then there would be perfect agreement in all versions, for God would not change his story from one author to another.
[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
Yes it is, and I also made a typo: "staffed" instead of satisfied (probably changed by my spell checker) first...
But it develops that we dogs need not content ourselves with the crumbs that fall from the table of the lost children of Israel.
That's a stretch (if not a joke).
The only convoluted style evident here is your torturous attempt to demonstrate that Dawkins didn’t say what he clearly did say.
Everything Dawkins writes in his books contradicts your conclusion. I don't read his response as you do in light of his written statements on the subject. I believe he either misspoke or, more in his style, convoluted his answer by first stating that the question of God is the ultimate question.
Then he addresses the question posed to him and concludes that it is, and that such a question cannot be answered by science.