Justin Martyr was a heretic

[epostle1]

Though Justin Martyr did teach correct Christian doctrine in some areas, that does not justify the destructive heresies that he did teach. Compromise with these heretical teachings of Justin cannot be justified.

Here are a few examples of Justin's heresies. More can be presented, but this makes the point. Even though I do not follow the teachings of COG, sometimes aberrant groups do good research.

Justin Martyr


From http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm

I have taken the liberty of editorializing the material.

Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,

Sunday as the Christian day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Apostles because
1) Sunday is clearly and explicitly defined as "the first day of the week" Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2
2) Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master."
Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
note the date.
note Ignatius is not issuing a directive but writing in past tense, as the Christians were already "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day".

Sunday worship was changed back to Saturday by Joseph Bates, a retired sea captain, who in 1846 and 1849 issued pamphlets insisting that Christians observe the Jewish Sabbath—Saturday—instead of worshipping on Sunday. This helped feed the intense anti-Catholicism of Seventh-day Adventism, since they blamed the Catholic Church for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/seventh-day-adventismread more here.

Jesus being born in a cave, calling the newly baptized "illuminated", and other positions that are not in the Bible.

So what. Cave, stable. It's mid 1st century literary style translated to English. He never said water baptism illuminates alone, you are twisting it. See the above post for the full context.

Sunday worship came from pagan sources, not from the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Primary source documentation please. SDA hate speech doesn't count.

Justin inaccurately claimed,

“And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).”

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.

There was no "Bible" as we know it in 155 AD. Again, the "fire" is metaphorical.


Justin taught Mithra-Like practices.

He clearly condemns Mithra-like practices, you say the opposite, or you simply can't read.

(1) He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:

“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).”

they who learn these things is not baptism, but learning about Christianity as a requirement for baptism. Read it again.

Water Baptism does not cause illumination.

Again, you are twisting it. He never said baptism alone causes illumination.

One receives the knowledge of the God and His truth at conversion. Water Baptism is a ceremony performed after that conversion. Water Baptism does nothing to change the knowledge one has in his mind or spirit.

You will not find a single official Catholic document, nor a single patristic scholar, in a 2000 year period, that says baptism changes knowledge. You are making it up.

I knew a man who had been taught for years that he would rise from the waters of baptism fully illuminated and filled with the Holy Ghost. When that did not happen, he surmised that all of Christianity was a lie and devoted the last decades of his life to atheism.

Whatever he may have learned was not Christianity, but magic. Baptism is not magical, it is sacramental.

(2) He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:

“And this food is called among us Εύχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished...Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology 66).”

​The communion elements do nothing to our flesh and blood. The communion elements are a symbol of Christ sacrificing His flesh and Blood for us for the washing away of our sins. This is a spiritual washing. Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin could result in actual physical consequences to our bodies. This rule forbidding non-Catholics from receiving Holy Communion is not to exclude, but to protect.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and possibly risk physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28)

Symbols can't forgive anything.