In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins (Col. 2:13)
Your analysis of this passage is wrong. Paul is indeed saying here that baptism is the new circumcision, one done by the Spirit which those who were physically, literally circumcised by the hand of a human did not have, as they were still dead in their sins without baptism.
And in your quote from Romans, read the entire chapter. Paul is saying that the Jews thought they were better than others because of their circumcision, but they were not. Paul is not comparing circumcision to baptism in this passage, he is comparing Jews to Gentiles.
****Y’all can go ahead and believe that - and I fully understand that you sorta HAVE to seeing that’s what your Catholic religion commands of you - but I choose to stick with what the word of God says.*****
Yea, nice little dig, and of course, there is no condemnation meant and it is of little consequence.
It wasn't meant as a “dig” but stating the obvious reasons why we get so much grief whenever ANY doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is disputed. As has been posted many times, Catholics have no choice but to give full assent to whatever the “Church” states is the truth. On a religion forum such as this, it doesn't hold much water to use it as the proof for any argument. Why even come on the thread if all that is offered is a “that's what we believe” statement when it should be understood at least after all this time that that's not good enough for non-Catholics? It is almost humorous that, for a few on here, saying “that's what the Church teaches” is thrown out there as if it's supposed to halt all discussion and everyone is supposed to walk away as if that settles it. It doesn't settle it and, just as in the early church, we have just as much right to be Christians but disagree on issues that are not clearly stated in Scripture and we can agree to disagree just as many of the ECFs did way back then. We can disagree without being disagreeable, right?
Do you understand what that means??? Does that sound like getting sprinkled with some water to you???