In his First Apology Justin Martyr writes : > We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him. And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose. Please identify the predictions he refers to (prophet, document, passage): 1. that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things 2. that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him 3. predicted 5000 years before He appeared 4. predicted 3000 years before He appeared 5. predicted 2000 years before He appeared 6. predicted 1000 years before He appeared 7. predicted 800 years before He appeared If we don't know to which prophecies he refers, then how do we know he wasn't mistaken?

In Justin Martyr's *Dialogue with Trypho* Chapter 56: > **Justin**: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. -[Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 55-68)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm) What does he mean by "there is said to be, another God and Lord subject..." I assumed before that Justin Martyr was a Monotheist but it almost seems like he is implying Jesus is a second God.

In Justin Martyr's First Apology Chapter 26, we read: > And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. The context is: >...the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. But these three accusations seemed to have been laid against the Christians, charges which Justin supposed was rather invented by them that probably committed it themselves and then charged to the Christians: "upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh". The "promiscuous intercourse" evidently referred to incestuous practices and "eating human flesh" to cannibalism which Eusebius confirms were charges laid against Christians,... > And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of **Thyestean banquets** and **Œdipodean intercourse**, and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men. *Ecclesiastical History, V.1.14* Other non-Christian writers also refer to such accusations against the Christians that explains two of these charges in *The First Apology* , but I cannot find a meaningful explanation of what "upsetting of the lamp" means.

Justin Martyr described Christians worshiping on Sunday twice in his first apology. > And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place > > But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly. This document cannot be dated any later than 165 since the author died at 165 . In the great controversy Ellen G White claims that for **at least** the first 2 hundred years, Sunday worship was unheard of by Christians. > In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians Ellen G White's and Justin Martyr's account of Christian history clearly contradict each other. How do Seventh-day Adventists respond to Justin Martyr's claims?

In *Dialogue with Trypho *, an early Christian text, Justin Martyr and a Jew named Trypho discuss the nature of the soul and its interaction with God. After talking a bit about if animals could see God and if that was any different than humans, this conversation happens (translation taken from here ): > [Trypho asked,] "'What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?' > > "'I cannot tell,' I [Justin Martyr] answered. > > "'And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?' said he. > > "'They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.' This seems like a really bizarre conclusion to me, yet Trypho seems to take it in stride, moving on to his next argument. Why would Justin Martyr assert that those who see God and yet were unworthy would become imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild animals? Was this a commonly held belief in his lifetime (in the years A.D. 100–165)?

I recently became aware of the *Dialogue with Trypho *, a Christian apology regarding Jesus being the Messiah, written by Justin Martyr sometime during his lifetime (in the years 100–165). However, Wikipedia doesn't say more specifically when during his lifetime this apology was written. Have any historians more specifically dated *Dialogue with Trypho*?

In his [*Dialogue with Trypho*, Chapter XXXV](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm) , Justin replies to Trypho's charge that Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols by saying that such people serve to show more distinctly who are the true followers of Jesus and exhort them to faithfulness, and that such people are wolves in sheep's clothing, causing schisms and heresies. However, my reading of the New Testament creates the impression that abstinence from food sacrificed the idols was prescribed in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) on the basis of the preservation of unity, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 clarifies that food does not commend us to God, the idols have no real existence in themselves, but that we should use our freedom to not cause the "weaker brother" to stumble (evidently in this case, the one who through prior associations finds a problem with eating the meat). Paul seems to think that it is more of a question of the company one is keeping that might make the action sinful, as opposed to the action itself. Trypho, as a Jew would have been such a person that the Christians should have at a minimum not publicly ate the meat around, and so they would be guilty of sin. But heresy? Wolves in sheep's clothing? Why does he not argue instead that these Christians are simply guilty of sin?

I'm interested to discover if there is any evidence that Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope had any direct or indirect contact before Marcion left the Church. I suspect that they may have had indirect contact through writing because they were both influential and outspoken members of a relatively small educated Christian community around the same time – Marcion was 15 years older than Justin. Also, while Justin established himself in Rome, it is well known that Irenaeus of Gaul was heavily influenced by Justin's work and published his own writings only 15 years after Justin, so I suspect that Justin's work was widespread during his lifetime, perhaps early enough to be considered by Marcion. These suspicions, however, are weakened by the fact that I do not know when Justin became widely known or when Marcion left the church. Is there any evidence that Marcion read any of Justin's works, or that the two communicated in any way, either directly or indirectly?

Justin narrates the manner of his conversion to Trypho the Jew. In Chapter III of his *Dialogue with Trypho* , he writes, >"And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him. >"And he said, 'Do you know me?' >I replied in the negative. >"'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me? >"'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.' >"And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere. But why are you here?' said he to me. Who was this man that Justin met? Something tells me he's trying to tell us that he met Jesus Christ, but maybe not. Is there any evidence that it was Jesus Christ, whether elsewhere from Justin, or from other patristic writings?