Onesiphorus is a person who is named in the New Testament twice, within one text.
A Roman Catholic brother engaged this writer with the claim that prayer for the dead is appropriate and biblically supportable. Part 1 dealt with some of our back and forth.
There are a few key issues with which to deal when considering the claim that prayer for the dead is biblical in that Paul prayed for Onesiphorus who was dead.
1) Was he dead or alive at the time?
2) If he was dead, was Paul praying for him?
3) What was Paul saying, whom was Paul addressing?
Read the entire bible and you will find only two kinds of prayers:
1) Prayer to the one true God YHVH.
2) Prayer to false gods.
Period, that is it.
But this is to whom biblical prayer is offered. Another question is for whom is biblical prayer offered. Read the entire Bible and you will find prayers offered:
1) For God, meaning in praise and worship of Him so not technically “for” Him but about Him (to Him).
2) Prayer pertaining to living people, nations, that events take place, etc.
3) But never for someone who is dead.
Period, that is it.
Yet, this is the contention; some claim that Onesiphorus was dead and so out of the Bible’s 66 books written by 40 authors we can find one text that concludes that prayer for the dead is acceptable—or can we?
As is common to Roman Catholicism, they abandon the Bible when it is inconvenient to them, they concoct doctrines and dogmas based upon the writings of saints, the sayings of ghostly apparitions, the proclamations of councils, the promulgations of Popes and only then, if even then, do they turn back to the Bible in order to read into fragments of text that which they already and authoritatively believe.
For example, as noted in part 1, he referred to “the M A N Y other verses I’ve sent…and still sending” meaning that he pasted entire pages of verses into which he has been taught to read whatever he wants to see.
Now, since this Examiner had asked if he had actually read those texts and received a response in the affirmative, it was further stated:
I wish that you would have said that oops, you actually had not read the text because how you could even imagine that any of those even got close to hinting about praying for the dead is beyond me.
He responded:
I’m not surprised that you think that.
No one prays to dead saints, because those in heaven are more alive than we are.
Do you see what is going on now?:
Now we appear to be engaged in semantics on the word "dead."
First, you claim that Paul is praying for the dead and now that those in heaven are more alive than we are. Indeed, they are more alive.
But you cannot have your Paul prays for dead cake and eat your "those in heaven are more alive than we are" too.
Just think about it, we are supposed to believe that praying for the dead is biblically appropriate due to one text? Due to one text which has to be forced to claim that Onesiphorus was dead, a text that does not state that he is dead and a text wherein Paul is not praying a he is not addressing God but Timothy?
This is the epitome of reading into the Bible that which one already wants to hear it say. Here it is again:
2 Tim 1:16-18 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.
This issue represents Hermeneutics 101: you do not build entire doctrines upon one verse. We must employ exegesis rather than eisegesis. Exegesis is coming to the text with a blank slate and discerning what the text is telling us. Eisegesis is coming to the text with preconceived notions and reading them into the text, forcing the text to say what we already want it to say, what we want to see.
For details see:
Comments