> i answer that, it might be assigned as a reason for the law being given to the jews rather than to other peoples, that the jewish people alone remained faithful to the worship of one god, while the others turned away to idolatry; wherefore the latter were unworthy to receive the law, lest a holy thing should be given to dogs. > although the salvation, which was to come through christ, was prepared for all nations, yet it was necessary that christ should be born of one people, which, for this reason, was privileged above other peoples; according to rm. 9:4: to whom, namely the jews, belongeth the adoption as of children (of god) . . . and the testament, and the giving of the law . . . whose are the fathers, and of whom is christ according to the flesh. > for several reasons christ ought to have been circumcised. first, in order to prove the reality of his human nature, in contradiction to the manicheans, who said that he had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to apollinarius, who said that christs body was consubstantial with his godhead; and in contradiction to valentine, who said that christ brought his body from heaven. second, in order to show his approval of circumcision, which god had instituted of old. third, in order to prove that he was descended from abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in him. fourth, in order to take away from the jews an excuse for not receiving him, if he were uncircumcised. > t. thomas aquinas a half turkish discord mischling with his other dozen racemixed internet friends might object, cue 30 minutes long laugh track
Italy