Status Updates From Dialogue with Trypho (Selec...

Why not just relate Deuteronomy 21:23 to Judas, instead of Christ? It would make more sense because, in Mosaic times, the punishment of crucifixion was not yet invented.

Chapter 94 is weak. The premise of Justin Martyrs argument is that God forbid the making of images unconditionally, which is already doubtful. Furthermore, he just about runs into the trap of seeing things commanded by God as just because He commanded them, instead of recognizing that if God commanded them, they were just to begin with. It is less bad than with Tertullian, however.

He shows very well how the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural.

I have to keep chapter 61 in mind, it seems highly relevant for the doctrine of the trinity.

"Thus, even if there were two persons, as you claim, both an angel and God, yet no one with even the slightest intelligence would dare to assert that the Creator of all things left his super-celestial realms to make himself visible in a little spot on earth.”
Sounds a little like he establishes a hierarchy among the Divine Persons.

"Therefore, gentlemen, this prophecy which I have quoted shows that
Christ is not a man of mere human origin, begotten in the ordinary human way.”

“The phrase the blood of the grape indicates allegorically that
Christ has blood, not, however, from human seed, but from the
power of God. For, as God, not man, has made the blood of the
grape, so it has been foretold that the blood of Christ would
not be from human seed, but from divine power."

"And those prophetical words of Jacob, as recorded by Moses, namely, He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape, signified that he would wash in his own blood those who believed in him. For the Holy Spirit called those whose sins were remitted by Christ, his robe, among whom he is always present in power, but will be manifestly present in person at his second coming."

How can Justin Martyr say that baptizing is a "spiritual circumcision" if he also thinks that the purpose of circumcision was to single the jews out for rightly deserved oppression?

The first parts were more interesting, but still, not a bad book at all.

"Moreover, the fact that females cannot receive circumcision of the flesh shows that circumcision was given as a sign, not as an act of justification. For God also bestowed on women the capability of performing every good and virtuous act."
How, then, did circumcision single the Jews out for destruction?

The way out, of course, is that salvation is not to be regarded as mechanistic. God can save the unbaptised and the uncircumcised if He wants. Sertillanges talked about the necessity of baptism for salvation, and he made it clear that while God desires it, He is not bound by it.

"For if, as you claim, circumcision had been necessary for salvation, God would not have created Adam uncircumcised; nor would he have looked with favor upon the sacrifice of the uncircumcised Abel, nor would he have been pleased with the uncircumcised Enoch, who was seen no more, because God took him."
The same argument might be applied to baptism, in a sense, but can be refuted then. Overall, it is good.

"“As I already explained,” I answered, “it is because circumcision is not essential for all men, but only for you Jews, to mark you off for the suffering you now so deservedly endure."
Doubtful. The suffering could be inflicted without the circumcision. It makes more sense from a historical perspective, given that the circumcised were not allowed to enter Jerusalem. But Justin Martyr extrapolates too much from that.

"We, too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and, in a word, all your festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and your hardness of heart."
Quite different from Origen, who said that the Jews used to be a virtuous people.

"The soul itself either is life or it possesses life. If it is life, it would cause something else to exist, not itself, just as motion causes something other than itself to move. Now, no one would deny that the soul lives; and if it lives, it does not live as life itself, but as a partaker of life. But, that which partakes of anything is different from that of which it partakes."