>>514743841
>completely changes the point
he was a jew, end of story, no amount of sliming your way out of it will work, it will only make christian turds even more hated than your jewish masters
>Again, it is written (Rom 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, who is over all things
>As is related Gen. 17, Abraham received from God and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, I was my father’s son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother, the gloss says: Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth? Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of His circumcision.
>I answer that, It was fitting that Christ’s preaching, whether through Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rom 15:8): I say that Christ . . . was minister of the circumcision, i.e., the apostle and preacher of the Jews, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
>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.
>Saint Thomas Aquinas