Also, Jesus is the Olive tree, not Israel. They are the natural branches. Gentiles are grafted into Jesus, the "root and stump of Jesse" not Israel. That is a major flaw in your understanding of the new covenant.
Also, if circumcision was still required today for Gentiles, then why do James, Peter, Paul and Titus argue the opposite? Don't say I'm taking them out of context, that's not an intellectually or spiritually defendable position because it simply isn't true. Circumcision isn't required any longer, but the new birth, being circumcised in the heart by the Spirit of God is what matters. To argue that the New Testament still teaches the necessity of physical circumcision is just insane, because it clearly teaches that it is not.
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?