He lived from 97-167 AD, and was seen as a witness by Catholic church.

Justin
changed the teachings of the Apostles in Godhead, as he called Jesus "second". He
was also the first to change the their baptismal formula (Acts 2:38) of Jesus
name, to a slightly extended trinity one. His converts were baptized as follows: "
I baptize you in the name of God the father and the Lord of all, and of our
savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost". Now, he believed and taught as the Jews
of his time, that the name of God was so Holy and such a mystery, that a man could
never know it. This is why he believed that God the father and his son Jesus
Christ, were two different persons. It was his unbelief in the name of Jesus as
being the father's and Holy Spirit's name as well, that laid the foundation, for
the trinity to come forth. John 5:43 Jesus speaking, "I Come in my father's
name"... John 14:26 The comforter, which is the Holy ghost, whom the father will
send in my name...Eph 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. So, the
name of Jesus is the name of the whole family of God. Paul wrote in Colossians
3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of the Lord
Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him". Baptism is both a deed with a
word spoken in or over it. It should be only in Jesus name, according to the
scriptures.Now Justin clearly changed it. Revelations 22:18-19 For I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall
add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and [from] the things which are written in this book. Though Jesus was inserted in
it's middle still, it was definitely changed. Let's read what Catholic history and
Historians say concerning this man.
Justin was an educated philosopher. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia he was:
...born at Flavia Neapolis, about A.D. 100, converted to Christianity about A.D.
130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where
he suffered martyrdom about the year 165. Two "Apologies" bearing his name and his
"Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon" have come down to us...The date of his birth is
uncertain, but would seem to fall in the first years of the second century. He
received a good education in philosophy...the works of Justin seem to show just
such a philosophic development as is here described, Eclectic, but owing much to
Stoicism and more to Platonism. He was still under the charm of the Platonistic
philosophy when, as he walked one day along the seashore, he met a mysterious old
man; the conclusion of their long discussion was that the soul could not arrive
through human knowledge at the idea of God, but that it needed to be instructed by
the Prophets who, inspired by the Holy Ghost, had known God and could make Him
known" (Lebreton. St. Justin Martyr).

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, The role of St. Justin may be summed up in one
word: it is that of a witness. We behold in him one of the highest and purest
pagan souls of his time in contact with Christianity (Lebreton J. Transcribed by
Stephen William Shackelford. St. Justin Martyr. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume
VIII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003
by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910.

In dying, Justin son of Priscus, acquired a new name-Justin Martyr. Today He is

recognized as the greatest of the early apologists...From him, such leaders as
Irenaeus and Tertullian of the next generation borrowed copiously (Hefley JC.
Heroes of the Faith. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, p.24).

Justin Martyr (ca. 95–167AD) and Irenaeus (ca. 130–202AD), while maintaining some
truths they had learned under Polycarp, also sought to accommodate themselves to
the new direction of Roman theology in the name of "church unity"..He also molded
the thinking of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons...He believed that the God of Plato was
also the God of the Bible (Ogwyn J. God's Church Through the Ages. Living Church
of God Booklet, 2003). Justin is known for his speaking, but mainly
from his writings:Many of Justin's writings have perished. Those works which have
come to us bearing his name have been divided into three classes. The first class
embraces those which are unquestionably genuine, viz. the two Apologies, and the
Dialogue with Trypho. Some critics have urged objections against His authorship of
the Dialogue; but the objections are regarded now as possessing no weight. The
second class consists of those works which are regarded by some critics as
Justin's, and by others as not his. They are: 1. An Address to the Greeks; 2. A
Hortatory Address to the Greeks; 3. On the Sole Government of God; 4. An Epistle
to Diognetus; 5. Fragments from a work on the Resurrection; 6. And other
Fragments. Whatever difficulty there may be in settling the authorship of these
treatises, there is but one opinion as to their earliness. The latest of them, in
all probability, was not written later than the third century. The third class
consists of those that are unquestionably not the works of Justin. These are: 1.
An Exposition of the True Faith; 2. Replies to the Orthodox; 3. Christian
Questions to Gentiles; 4. Gentile Questions to Christians; 5. Epistle to Zenas and
Serenus; and 6. A Refutation of certain Doctrines of Aristotle. There is no clue
to the date of the two last. There can be no doubt that the others were written
after the Council of Nicaea, though, immediately after the Reformation, Calvin and
others appealed to the first as a genuine writing of "Justin's" (Roberts and
Donaldson. Introductory Note). This article is based on quotes of Justin's from
the three writings that are considered to have been authentic, as well as one
recorded by his contemporary Irenaeus.

There are many statements that He wrote that tend to be remembered favorably (even
if they could have benefited from some editing). Perhaps the ones best regarded
are some of those in what has been called The First Apology (note: the term
apology means defense in this sense; thus a religious apologist was historically
one who defended one's faith), which is addressed to the Roman Emperor and the
Senate. Justin does a decent job of trying to explain why Christians in general
(and him in particular) should not be killed simply for believing in Christ.Here
is how it starts off: I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius,
natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in
behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself
being one of them...For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor
please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate
and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing
superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have
long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves.
For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as
evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt
us... (Justin Martyr. The First Apology. Chapters I, II. Note: All quotes in this
paper from Justin Martyr are from Roberts and Donaldson's translation unless
otherwise noted.) From The Second Apology, But when we are examined, we make no
denial, because we are not conscious of any evil, but count it impious not to
speak the truth in all things, which also we know is pleasing to God, and because
we are also now very desirous to deliver you from an unjust prejudice" (Justin
Martyr. The Second Apology. Chapter IV).

Although he elsewhere made a possibly trinitarian statement, He wrote, When

Scripture says,' The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic
word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says,
descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the
Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being
Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning,
'Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,' this phrase, 'like one of Us,' is also
indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the
sophists endeavor to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand
the truth (Dialogue. Chapter CXXIX). Hence, Justin may have had some type of
binitarian concept.He never called the 'Spirit' God--he usually referred to it as
"the prophetic Spirit".

Although he does not discuss the manner of baptism, He suggests that after
believing, that water is used: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we
teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are
instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their
sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us
where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were
ourselves regenerated. 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 (The First Apology. Chapter LXI).

This seems to contradict Acts 2:38 which teaches, Then Peter said to them,
"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission (Forgiveness) of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit."

While Jesus encouraged prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:21, He never taught that
fasting led to the remission of sins. Jesus did teach that His blood was " shed
for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

It is possible that Justin may have gleaned his statement from Stoic or other
philosophers as it is not taught that way in the Bible.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the
Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews' (Reid GJ.
Canon of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia).

He seemed to teach that Jewish leaders removed passages from the Bible though it
is not clear that he taught that books were missing (Ibid. Chapters 71-73).
Catholics actually use Justin's statements to partially justify why they should
add books to the Old Testament (see article on the Old Testament Canon even though
He never referred to those additional books (Reid. Canon of the Old Testament).

His assertions are clearly not correct. It was the Jews to whom the oracles of God
were committed: This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the
Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received
the living oracles to give to us (Acts 7:38). What advantage, then, is there in
being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of
all, they have been entrusted with the very (oracle) words of God (Romans 3:1-2).

The Greek word translated as oracles or 'very words' in those passages is: logion
(log'-ee-on); neuter of NT:3052; an utterance (of God) (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive
Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright
(c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.).

In other words, scripture was entrusted to the Jews. Note that Paul credits them
for that, and does not blame them for losing parts of it. Furthermore, Jesus did
not criticize the Jews for losing parts of the Bible, because they had not done so
(actually He suggested otherwise, Matthew 5:18;24:35). If "Scripture cannot be
broken" (John 10:35), how can Justin claim parts were lost?

Additionally, Paul specifically told Timothy, ...from childhood you have known the
Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, that the man of God may be complete" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Those
Holy Scriptures were entrusted to the Jews, and could not have been lost or the
man of God could not be complete. Yet Justin seems to be arguing that the Holy
Scriptures were corrupted, hence the Jews no longer possessed the ability to
become complete.

Irenaeus, not too long after Justin's death related this."Truly has Justin
remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God,
inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in
parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly
ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been
prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for
all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such
men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and
imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary
disposition" (Against Heresies. Book 5, Chapter XXVI).

This is not biblical. Since the Satan knew scripture (e.g. Matthew 4), he would
have known Psalm 9:17, The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol" or Hell.

And Isaiah 14:12-15 which states, How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son
of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On
the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I
will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest
depths of the pit.

Satan also deliberately encouraged blaspheming centuries before Christ, ...stretch

out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your
face! (Job 1:11) ...stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh,
and he will surely curse You to Your face! (Job 2:5).

The fact that he rebelled against God also shows Satan's blasphemous nature. To
claim Satan did not blaspheme or know his fate before Christ was an outrageous
claim on Justin's part.

He also taught, And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His
goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter...And that you
may learn that it was from our teachers--we mean the account given through the
prophets--that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which
was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as
above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek
writers (The First Apology. Chapters X, LIX).

Yet. the Bible teaches, By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the
host of them by the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6) All things were made through
Him (John 1:3).

Interestingly, even though Irenaeus liked Justin, Irenaeus wrote this about the
Gnostic heretics like the Valentinians, This opinion, too, that they hold the
Creator formed the world out of previously existing matter, both Anaxagoras,
Empedocles, and Plato expressed before them; as, forsooth, we learn they also do
under the inspiration of their Mother (Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book II,
Chapter 14).

Hence it is appears that Justin was, once again, providing more of a Plato
philosophical, and not biblical, view of religious-related events.
Justin picked up some ideas about the cross from Plato: Labarum...The two great
circles of the heavens, the equator and the ecliptic, which, by intersecting each
other form a sort of recumbent chi and about which the whole dome of the starry
heavens swings in a wondrous rhythm, became for the Christian eye a heavenly
cross."Of Plato's image in Timaeus, Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist writing
in the second century, found a prefiguration of the Cross (Robert Grigg,
"Symphōnian Aeidō tēs Basileias": An Image of Imperial Harmony on the Base of the
Column of Arcadius" The Art Bulletin 59.4 (December 1977:469-482) p. 477, note 42.
Cited at Wikipedia, Labarum).

Here is what Justin wrote: And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of
God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the
universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it
is related how at that time , when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in
the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps , and
every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration
and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross , and set
it in the holy tabernacle , and said to the people, If you look to this figure,
and believe, you shall be saved thereby. And when this was done, it is recorded
that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.
Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending
that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise , he
said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.
And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above,
that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For
he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed
crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be
borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third. And hear how the
Spirit of prophecy signified through Moses that there should be a conflagration.
He spoke thus: Everlasting fire shall descend, and shall devour to the pit beneath
(First Apology, Chapter 60).

I do not believe that the Bible shows that Moses intended for the serpent symbol
to be a cross, or that Plato got his ideas from Moses. Furthermore, when some
Israelites did treat the serpent symbol like many today treat the cross, King
Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). One claimed to be as educated as Justin
should have known that.

Sadly, the particular cross symbol that Plato endorsed became the symbol of the
murderous Emperor Constantine who adopted it. It may be of interest to note that
at least one Catholic writer has written that the particular Labarum cross may be
the mark of the beasts in Revelation 13: Priest P. Huchedé (19th century): What
this sign shall be time alone will reveal. Yet there are some {Catholic}
commentators of the Holt Writ, who, according to a special revelation pretend to
say that it shall be formed out of the Greek letters X and P, interlaced...which
resembles the number of Christ. (Cornelius a Lapide in Epis. 2 to Thes.). No one
can either buy or sell without that…(Huchedé, P. Translated by JBD. History of
Antichrist. Imprimatur: Edward Charles Fabre, Bishop of Montreal. English
edition 1884, Reprint 1976. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 24).

If some type of cross is a symbol of the future Antichrist/Beast power as Priest

P. Huchedé claims it may be (and it is in a book with an official imprimatur),
perhaps those who come from faiths descended from Emperor Constantine should be
concerned about their religion now--before it becomes even further removed from
the original faith. The Bible indicates that the true Christians will not have the
symbol/mark needed to buy or sell when the two beasts of Revelation 13 are in
power, but only those that will follow those beasts will (Revelation 13:16-17)--
and while crosses may not necessarily be required everywhere, other Catholic
writings suggest that in certain places, they will be.

The earliest faithful Christians did NOT use the cross as a symbol. The cross does
not start to appear on any churches until the time of Constantine. But Justin's
reliance on a pagan philosopher (Plato) over the Bible (2 Kings 18:4), is
disturbing and is one of the justification that some use even today for crosses.

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.

The Bible teaches, Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD deceitfully
(Jeremiah 48:10). He is falsely claiming teachings from the Bible that were not
so.

In his First Apology he mentioned, ...the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore
(The First Apology. Chapter VI).

He gives no additional explanation. The term "prophetic Spirit" is not found in

any Bible. Justin apparently could have come up with that term from 2 Peter 1:21
which states, "For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

There is no indication there or in other parts of the Bible about either

worshipping or adoring a prophetic Spirit or the Holy Spirit-Justin's writing may
be the first showing worship and adoration of the Spirit. Was Christ cursed? One
concern that Trypho had was, "But whether Christ should be so shamefully
crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the
law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point"
(Dialogue. Chapter 89).

Ultimately, Justin responded with, Therefore our suffering and crucified Christ
was not cursed by the law, but made it manifest that He alone would save those who
do not depart from His faith (Dialogue. Chapter 111).

This seems to conflict with what Paul wrote in Galatians 3:13, "Christ has
redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (for it is
written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree").

Thus, it appears that Justin somewhat contradicted this scripture. Instead, He

perhaps should have simply quoted the entire section in Galatians 2:10-14 where
Paul appears to address this particular concern.

Perhaps it should be noted that the Roman Church teaches that he may have been
less than truthful. The Catholic Encyclopedia states this about Justin, In both
"Apologies" and in his "Dialogue" he gives many personal details, e.g. about his
studies in philosophy and his conversion; they are not, however, an autobiography,
but are partly idealized, and it is necessary to distinguish in them between
poetry and truth…He received a good education in philosophy, an account of which
he gives us at the beginning of his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"…This account
cannot be taken too literally; the facts seem to be arranged with a view…This
interview is evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account
cannot be wholly fictitious.
Is not lying being partially fictitious?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in another article concerning a different writing from

Justin states: Justin says further that Simon came to Rome during the reign of the
Emperor Claudius and by his magic arts won many followers so that these erected on
the island in the Tiber a statue to him as a divinity with the inscription "Simon
the Holy God". The statue, however, that Justin took for one dedicated to Simon
was undoubtedly one of the old Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. Statues of this early
god with similar inscriptions have been found on the island in the Tiber and
elsewhere in Rome. It is plain that the interchange of e and i in the Roman
characters led Justin or the Roman Christians before him, to look upon the statue
of the early Sabine deity, of whom they knew nothing, as a statue of the magician.
Whether Justin opinion that Simon Magus came to Rome rests only on the fact that
he believed Roman followers had erected this statue to him, or whether he had
other information on this point, cannot now be positively determined. His
testimony cannot, therefore, be verified and so remains doubtful. The later anti-
heretical writers who report Simon's residence at Rome, take Justin and the
apocryphal Acts of Peter as their authority, so that their testimony is of no
value… Simon plays an important part in the "Pseudo-Clementines". He appears here
as the chief antagonist of the apostle Peter, by whom he is everywhere followed
and opposed. The alleged magical arts of the magician and Peter's efforts against
him are described in a way that is absolutely imaginary. The entire account lacks
all historical basis (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Joseph E. O'Connor. Simon Magus.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York). What is a saint? Let's look at a
couple passages from the Bible that provide some insights as to who are saints:
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named
among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor
coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you
know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with
empty(vain) words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the
sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them (Ephesians 5:3-7).
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of
God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:12).

So saints keep the commandments AND the faith of Jesus--this clearly disqualifies
Justin. Saints are not deceived by those teaching otherwise. These are clearly
referring to the ten commandments of God and not merely any separate commandments
of Jesus Christ.

How can you be sure of that? Because Christ, Himself, in the gospel accounts,
never specifically taught the law against idolatry.

It is interesting that Jesus does condemn eating foods offered to idols in

Revelation 2:14,20, which shows that this is something the Churches should have
known from the ten commandment. What is an Heretic? Justin clearly taught many
things contrary to the Bible (this article has left many of his inaccurate claims
out for brevity's sake, there are also a variety of contradictions in his
comments)--but was he a heretic?

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, The term heresy connotes, etymologically,

both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the
selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or
State. ...St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men
who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The right
Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that
truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from
Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way
of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to
certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is
the way of heretics...The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the
Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own
approval...Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith
clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first
degree (Wilhelm J. Heresy).

Since the official teaching on the Catholic Church is that Christians are to keep
the ten commandments, it is clear from this definition that Catholics should
consider Justin,not to be a saint, but a clearly a heretic and possibly (as will
be discussed next) an apostate.

Also according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, APOSTASY A FIDE, or PERFIDIÆ Perfidiæ

is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the
apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc.,
or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs
from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed
religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always
been looked upon as one of the most grievous (Van Hove A. Apostasy).

Since I believe and history shows that Justin intentionally misrepresented

biblical teachings, knowingly advocated not keeping the commandments, and embraced
some form of philosophical rationalism, that, to me, makes him an apostate.

Recall also that John warned, “He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Why would any
Christian leader wish to base any significant theology on the teachings of Justin?