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.
Were what you allege true, there would be no need for both a testament of Matthew and a testament of Mark. When Holy Scripture is called inspired, what is meant is that God divinely influences the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. You would have it as stenographers taking dictation for a lab report. To be expected, I suppose, from a Materialist, violently opposed to the thought that anything might be divinely inspired, but who needs duplicate lab reports.
It’s likewise more than passing strange that you are certain that Christ went “through” Sidon for the express purpose of taking a “roundabout” route to Galilee, yet can assert no other positive knowledge about Christ’s wanderings at that time. The one sure thing in an uncertain world. Your declarations simply aren’t credible . . . only self-serving.
“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.
“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.”
A blatant denial of the patently obvious earns you no credit.
I also cited a second quote of Dawkins:
“Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
This last comes from a discussion with Dawkins about his book, The God Delusion, wherein he not only declares The Judeo-Christian God to be nonexistent, but also questions the mental state of any practicing Christian.
In other venues Dawkins has gone so for as to propose that parents should not be allowed to teach their children in religious practices until the age of 16, and that any who enroll their children in church should have their children taken from them by the state.
“I believe he either misspoke . . . ”
He has been, then, misspeaking most every day of his adult life. Spin yourself dizzy.