Jews

You mean risen. Otherwise solid post

If they circumcised you for religious reasons then yes it is a mortal sin to do that. You didn't sin assuming you were a child.

No the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled with the Birth of Messiah. That's the fulfillment of the promise with God, that the Messiah would be born through them.

I know for a fact that the church started not after he was risen but when his side was pierced, that's when the Church started. I suppose theologians might have different opinions on whether the Israelites were under the Mosaic law when Jesus was alive. He seemed to abrogate the Mosaic Law already when he was alive, so I don't really know. I still think that the Covenant was that the Messiah would be born through them. But yes the church started only after his side was pierced. He did start changing some of the Mosaic Law like divorce (and possibly eating, although he made it more clear to Peter post resurrection) so yeah I am not really sure. If anyone has some Doctors of the Church's writing on this matter that would be interesting, but either way it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

The church started with creation, Christianity us the same faith Noah, Job, David, and Abraham all had

I'm used to people using covenant just for New or Mosaic, with the Mosaic one being finished with John 19:30.

Just quote him Rev 3:9 till he understands that Zionist evangelicalism is nothing more than traditions of men.

No this is wrong, unless you're a Prot which means nothing makes sense to you. From the CCC

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ's total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. "The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus."171 "For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the 'wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.'"172 As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam's side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.173

Are you trying to tell me that Abraham and Job had a different faith then us? If so, who did Abraham worship

Adding to the list. Jews *were* God's chosen people but I can't understand how anyone who reads the Gospel can honestly say that when Christ came the wheat was separated from the chaff in regard to who was truly God's chosen people. See: John 8.

Attached: 1534082425324.jpg (900x600, 282.38K)

Wasn't*

Can somebody explain to me the purposes of circumcision, both then and now? I know Biblical circumcision was different from modern circumcision both in how it actually was done and the purpose, but I don't actually know what the difference was in either way.

Saint Paul writes in Sacred Scripture that the Jews are the enemies of all men. Would your father consider this to be "cursing the Jews"? Because if so then he must also think that Scripture is flawed.

It is a sin to get circumcised for religious reasons now, as saint paul says that you shouldn't circumcise after you are called. Most people like my parents get circumcised for nonreligious reasons. as they fall for the "its healthy for the baby" meme that the jews have pushed into becoming a fact in this clown world

From the "Catholic Encyclopedia", a very good source on Catholic teachings and terminology:

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Attached: 1280px-Exterior_Mosiac_of_Santa_Maria_Trastevere.jpg (1280x512, 178.78K)

Didn't Paul have somebody circumcised in Acts?

That comes from the notes in the Scofield bible, the fount of "Christian" zionism. It's not Christianity, it's Scofieldism - a cancer.

No, St Paul says in Galatians Chapter 5 that the act of becoming circumcised severs you from Gods people

This is a very difficult topic to discuss due to its overly emotional nature, not to mention the fact that most threads about jews are designated psyops.
The entire point of threads like these is to push people towards one of the two simplistic conclusions and destroy the very possibility of developing a nuanced view on the situation through dialogue.
The simplistic conclusions are:

a, the jews are Gods chosen and they have never done anything wrong and we must serve their interest no matter what.
This conclusion is utterly false because even just a cursory glance at jewish involvement in the vice industry should be a giant red flag, not to speak of other shady dealings and their involvement in communism. However the one merit of this stance is that it seeks to be merciful and forgiving. However both mercy and forgiveness have an appropriate context in which they are proper.

b, the Jews are the synagogue of Satan, they are evil and for their crimes they deserve punishment. They are evil, demonic creatures who prey on the weak and spread degeneracy, sin and corruption throughout the world. This is good because its motivated by justice and a thirst to right wrongs and stop evil.
While on the surface this conclusion has way more merit than the other one, it usually turns people hateful, resentful and generally emotional and easy to trigger, as such people who really hate jews are very easy to control and manipulate into doing some outrageously stupid thing like shooting up a synagogue, which literally serves jewish interests because they can complain about anti semitism and get more and more institutional power and popular support from people who believe is conclusion "a".

As such a simplistic view is simply not feasible.
A nuanced view is neccessary that reconciles the good of both sides and exposes the jew for what it is.

My opinion is that while the jews are wicked creatures, thats all the more reason to have pity for them, however our love and pity for them must be ordinate, meaning that it shouldn't come before more important things. To have pity for the jew is proper and right, but to use these feelings as an excuse to let them get away with the evil they inflict on the world is utterly sinful and unjust.

Based and breadpilled.
I can tell that you're a /pol convert.

This is how it was done and what changed.

Attached: Wikinormia History of male circumcision 2.JPG (947x881 58.59 KB, 46.83K)

Acts 16:3 "Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."
Was there some reason he had Timothy circumcised but later didn't circumcise people?

OP, I made this post on another thread, but it's also pertinent to your question. It's about if Christianity has Jewish roots or not, so it relates to the fact that since Jews rejected Jesus, they're not God's chosen people, and what rejecting Jesus means.

Timothy wasn't circumcised to fulfill the law, but so he could pass among the Jews and spread the good news.

I find it really strange to think they were doing penis checks for religion …

Less penis inspection day with the padre and more communal baths.

Didnt your school have penis inspection day? When the gym teacher would pull aside male students into his office one at a time to inspect your penis

No, because my school wasn't run by Molochians.