• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians: The thief on the cross

This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

our thought on the thief on the cross has to do with the resurrection


Jesus had said that both righteous and unrighteous people would be resurrected...the former would be resurrected to life, the latter to judgement.

John 5:25 “Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment


“I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”—ACTS 24:15.


The thief on the cross would be among the 'unrighteous' who will be resurrected during Christs millenial reign. They are resurrected to a life of 'judgement' because they will have to make a choice about God at that time. The judgment will be based on what they choose...whether they choose to obey God and live by his laws or they choose not to. If they choose not to, then they will simply return to their tombs/grave...but if they choose to accept God, they will be granted life on earth with the rest of mankind.

This is why Jesus could outrightly tell the man that he would be with him in 'paradise' The man was about to die, and Jesus knew that all unrighteous people who die before Gods great day will be given another chance to come to know God. That man will be resurrected and will be given another opportunity. Its a wonderful hope God is making available to all mankind who have died...everyone.
 
Quote:
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

It says: "today." Does that mean judgment day is the day when one dies, and not a universal day.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

I'm "almost" with Pegg on this one. :) The meaning of the Luke 23 account is distorted because of a simple error in grammar. The comma, which follows Christ’s lead-in statement, "Verily, I say unto you…" was inserted and misplaced by men. It changed His entire meaning. The original Greek did not use commas and quotation marks. Translators using their own discretion added them later. The correct rendering is, "Verily, I say unto you today [in other words, "I tell you right now"], shall you be with Me in Paradise."

The Bible tells us there are three resurrections (Rev. 20:4-15). Since the thief obviously had not been baptized and given God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), he cannot be among those raised in the First Resurrection (I Thes. 4:16). Since Christ did not condemn him, we know that he will not be raised in the Third Resurrection, which is for those who would not repent. These will all be destroyed (Rev. 20:6, 14-15). The thief will receive his opportunity for salvation in the Second Resurrection, to take place after the millennium (Rev. 20:5, 11-12). After 1,000 years of the whole world living according to God's laws with Christ and His Saints at the helm and satan out of the picture, the world will truly be a "paradise."
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I'm "almost" with Pegg on this one. :) The meaning of the Luke 23 account is distorted because of a simple error in grammar. The comma, which follows Christ’s lead-in statement, "Verily, I say unto you…" was inserted and misplaced by men. It changed His entire meaning. The original Greek did not use commas and quotation marks. Translators using their own discretion added them later. The correct rendering is, "Verily, I say unto you today [in other words, "I tell you right now"], shall you be with Me in Paradise."

i agree with you 100% on that point ;)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?
It's really pointless to try to debate whether the thief on the cross had been baptized or not. More than likely, he wasn't, but we really don't know for sure. After all, look at all of the baptized thieves are sitting in prisons across the U.S. today.

Secondly, Jesus promised him that He'd see him in paradise that day; He did not promise him salvation. Despite what most Christians today are willing to accept as fact, proxy baptisms performed by the living on behalf of someone who had died without having been baptized were being performed in the apostolic era (and for some years thereafter, judging from the fact that the Catholic Church did not formally put a stop to the practice until several hundred years later). Had the thief not been baptized but had been promised by Jesus Christ that he would be in paradise after his death, he could still have received baptism vicariously and would have needed to do so in order to ultimately receive the fullness of salvation after his resurrection.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Quote:
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

It says: "today." Does that mean judgment day is the day when one dies, and not a universal day.
I believe that there is a preliminary judgment immediately following one's death, but that the final judgment does not take place until such time as the body is resurrected. Following the preliminary judgment, a person will find himself either in paradise or in hell (the spirit prison). Because God is a loving and just God, and desires all to return to His presence someday, He has provided a means by which all will have an opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ before it is too late. For many, this will happen during the period during which the body lies in the ground, dead. I guess the bottom like -- with respect to the question you have posed -- is that paradise is not the same thing as heaven. It is the place where the righteous (including the wicked who, like the thief on the cross, have repented) await the "last judgment" at their resurrection.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I'm "almost" with Pegg on this one. :) The meaning of the Luke 23 account is distorted because of a simple error in grammar. The comma, which follows Christ’s lead-in statement, "Verily, I say unto you…" was inserted and misplaced by men. It changed His entire meaning. The original Greek did not use commas and quotation marks. Translators using their own discretion added them later. The correct rendering is, "Verily, I say unto you today [in other words, "I tell you right now"], shall you be with Me in Paradise."
The problem is, we really don't know for sure where the comma should be placed or whether there should even be a comma. Since virtually all of the punctuation we see in our Bibles today was inserted by its translators, all we can really be sure of is that some of the translators believed one thing and some of them believed something else. They either inserted a comma or chose not to based upon what they believed Christ meant by His statement. Wouldn't it be nice if He could come down and clarify this for us? :)

The Bible tells us there are three resurrections (Rev. 20:4-15). Since the thief obviously had not been baptized and given God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), he cannot be among those raised in the First Resurrection (I Thes. 4:16). Since Christ did not condemn him, we know that he will not be raised in the Third Resurrection, which is for those who would not repent. These will all be destroyed (Rev. 20:6, 14-15). The thief will receive his opportunity for salvation in the Second Resurrection, to take place after the millennium (Rev. 20:5, 11-12). After 1,000 years of the whole world living according to God's laws with Christ and His Saints at the helm and satan out of the picture, the world will truly be a "paradise."
I'm going to have to get back to you on this paragraph since I've got an early day tomorrow and need to get to bed. For now, though, I'll simply say that I disagree with you. :)
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
The problem is, we really don't know for sure where the comma should be placed or whether there should even be a comma. Since virtually all of the punctuation we see in our Bibles today was inserted by its translators, all we can really be sure of is that some of the translators believed one thing and some of them believed something else. They either inserted a comma or chose not to based upon what they believed Christ meant by His statement. Wouldn't it be nice if He could come down and clarify this for us? :)

The inspired original Greek could be read either way. Since the punctuation can change the meaning entirely, we need to let the remainder of the bible interpret what Jesus said (contextual analysis)! We know Jesus' body was in the grave (hell) for three days and three nights prior to His resurrection so there is no way Jesus could have literally meant that same day. With this simple fact alone, we can correctly place the comma after the word "today".

I'm going to have to get back to you on this paragraph since I've got an early day tomorrow and need to get to bed. For now, though, I'll simply say that I disagree with you. :)

You sure about that? I'm still waiting for an answer on a somewhat related topic we initially discussed way back in November ;) see last reply of this post here
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The inspired original Greek could be read either way. Since the punctuation can change the meaning entirely, we need to let the remainder of the bible interpret what Jesus said (contextual analysis)! We know Jesus' body was in the grave (hell) for three days and three nights prior to His resurrection so there is no way Jesus could have literally meant that same day. With this simple fact alone, we can correctly place the comma after the word "today".
I disagree. Both Jesus and the thief died in the evening of the day they were crucified. The fact that Jesus' body lay in the tomb for the next three days does not, according to my Church's teachings, mean that His spirit died or remained in his body during that time. As a matter of fact, we're told that He commended His spirit into His Father's hands and gave up the ghost before He died, which to many, many Christians (I don't know about you), would indicate that His spirit continued to exist as a cognizant entity apart from His physical, dead body. Since we LDS believe the same thing happens to the spirits of all of us after we die, there is no reason for me to believe Jesus was referring to any other time than "today" when He told the thief He would next see him.

You sure about that? I'm still waiting for an answer on a somewhat related topic we initially discussed way back in November ;) see last reply of this post here
I'm not sure about anything. I occasionally forget that I've promised someone I'd get back to them. I try remember, but don't always. If I ever forget to reply to a post I've told you I will get back to later, please feel free to PM me with a reminded. So... I will try to remember to get back to this particular thread sometime today. :yes: I'm leaving now for an appointment, though, and won't even be back home until mid-afternoon at least.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I disagree. Both Jesus and the thief died in the evening of the day they were crucified. The fact that Jesus' body lay in the tomb for the next three days does not, according to my Church's teachings, mean that His spirit died or remained in his body during that time. As a matter of fact, we're told that He commended His spirit into His Father's hands and gave up the ghost before He died, which to many, many Christians (I don't know about you), would indicate that His spirit continued to exist as a cognizant entity apart from His physical, dead body.

the only real way to understand what the spirit entails is to understand what it means.

the hebrew word for spirit is 'ruach' and the greek equivalent is 'pneuma'
pne′o literally means breathe or blow.... so i find it impossible to accept that the spirit is anything but the air in our lungs.

When Jesus commended his pne'o to God, he was breathing his last breath. It was Jesus breath that returned to God and im pretty sure my breath does not have a consciousness to it...its just air.

You may not agree, but I cannot see any other way to apply the meanings of the original words.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
All for you, James, even though I was very, very tired... ;)
The Bible tells us there are three resurrections (Rev. 20:4-15).
James, which verse in Revelation 20:4-15 speaks of a third resurrection? I’m trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that there will be any more than two resurrections – one at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign and the other at the end of that reign.
Since the thief obviously had not been baptized and given God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), he cannot be among those raised in the First Resurrection (I Thes. 4:16).
What do you mean, “obviously”? Are you saying that someone who had been baptized could not possibly be guilty of theft? I would agree that the likelihood that he’d been baptized is probably not all that great, but is certainly isn’t “obvious.” According to my belief, after the thief died, since he had repented of his sins and acknowledged Christ as someone who had the power to save him, his soul would have entered a place of peace and rest after leaving his body at death. This place was referred to by Jesus Christ as “paradise.” Having taken the first two steps towards salvation – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance for his sins – he would indeed rise in the First Resurrection. Though his body would have remained in the grave, his spirit would have continued to exist as a cognizant entity, and once in paradise, he would have had the opportunity to learn of God’s plan of salvation and to receive (by proxy) the ordinances (or sacraments) of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (I’m going with your assumption that he had not been baptized during his life, although I do believe it to have been a possibility). Then, when Christ returns and the Millennium begins, his mortal body will be resurrected and made perfect and immortal. His spirit will re-enter it, giving it new, eternal life.

Since Christ did not condemn him, we know that he will not be raised in the Third Resurrection, which is for those who would not repent. These will all be destroyed (Rev. 20:6, 14-15). The thief will receive his opportunity for salvation in the Second Resurrection, to take place after the millennium (Rev. 20:5, 11-12). After 1,000 years of the whole world living according to God's laws with Christ and His Saints at the helm and satan out of the picture, the world will truly be a "paradise."
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see Revelation 20:4-15 as referring to a Third Resurrection at all. I see the repentant thief as rising in the First Resurrection, as I have explained.


But, let’s consider the fate of the other thief, the one who died without having repented. As happened with the first thief, his spirit would have left his body at death. But his spirit would not have been received into paradise but into hell or prison. During the period of time between his death and his resurrection, he would have also been given the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught to the spirits in the spirit world by those who had accepted it while on earth. It is altogether possible that he would have never known anything about Jesus Christ during his life, and may very well have seen the man, Jesus, for the first time as they hung dying together. If during the time when he awaits his resurrection, he comes to repent of his sins and accept Jesus Christ, acknowledging him as his Savior, he will have been released from hell and be allowed to spend the remaining time until his resurrection in the state of paradise. So far, he’s had about two thousand years to suffer and to think things over.

So, fast forward to the beginning of the Millennium. The first thief will undoubtedly be resurrected as part of the First Resurrection. With the second thief, it’s hard to say, because we don’t know whether he will have repented of his sins after hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ or not. If he does by the time of Christ’s Second Coming, he too will rise in the First Resurrection. If he does not, his chances for redemption are at an end. This doesn’t mean that he will never be resurrected. It just means that in order to be forgiven for his sins, he will have to endure a thousand more years of incarceration in hell. Jesus Christ would have been more than willing to pay the price for his sins, but having had His offer refused, will no longer do so. The thief, unrepentant at the time the First Resurrection takes place, will suffer mental anguish throughout the Millennium and will finally, at its end, be resurrected as part of the Second Resurrection.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
the only real way to understand what the spirit entails is to understand what it means.

the hebrew word for spirit is 'ruach' and the greek equivalent is 'pneuma'
pne′o literally means breathe or blow.... so i find it impossible to accept that the spirit is anything but the air in our lungs.
I disagree, Pegg. I agree that the word "pneuma" does mean "breath," but it also means "life." I believe that a person's spirit is his life force. I believe that God's spirit is His life force. In other words, I believe that the scripture which states, "God is spirit," means "God is life." He is the source of all life. That makes sense to me, whereas I cannot believe that "God is spirit" means "God is the air in our lungs." That would make God nothing more than nitrogen and oxygen.

When Jesus commended his pne'o to God, he was breathing his last breath. It was Jesus breath that returned to God and im pretty sure my breath does not have a consciousness to it...its just air.
While I agree that your breath has no consciousness to it, I believe that your spirit is far more than just air. I believe that your spirit is your life force and that your life force is, in turn, your consciousness. And God's spirit is most certainly more than air, in my opinion.

You may not agree, but I cannot see any other way to apply the meanings of the original words.
Thanks for your explanation. It's nice that we've been able to keep this dialogue civil. Maybe we've both had enough practice being insulted by the mainstream Christian population to know that it makes a lot more sense to try to discuss our differences respectfully. I hope we can continue in this vein.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I disagree, Pegg. I agree that the word "pneuma" does mean "breath," but it also means "life." I believe that a person's spirit is his life force. I believe that God's spirit is His life force. In other words, I believe that the scripture which states, "God is spirit," means "God is life." He is the source of all life. That makes sense to me, whereas I cannot believe that "God is spirit" means "God is the air in our lungs." That would make God nothing more than nitrogen and oxygen.

I should have pointed out that the spirit is different things in different contexts. A person can be in 'high spirits'. There are spirit 'bodies' that exist in the heavenly places and yes, God is a spirit as are his angels. But it seems that in the context of mankind, our spirit is put their by God...its both breath and life as the original word specifies and it cannot exist outside of us because if it leaves us, we die.

Here are some scriptural uses for the words Ruach and Pneuma

Habakkuk 2:19 “‘Woe to the one saying to the piece of wood: “O do awake!” to a dumb stone: “O wake up! It itself will give instruction”! Look! It is sheathed in gold and silver, and there is no breath (Heb.Ruach Gr.Pneuma) at all in the midst of it"
The context of spirit in this verse is 'life'... dead wooden images have no spirit/life in them

Rev 13:15 "And there was granted it to give breath (Gr.Pneuma Lat.Spiritum) to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak..."
In this verse, the spirit given to the image of the wild beast is not given to it by God because the wild beast is a product of the devil...so spirit in this context means 'life' but not life from God.

At Job 41:15, 16 ru′ach represents air in motion...its an invisible force. And John3:8 likens the pneuma to the wind...again its an invisible force. Genesis speaks of Gods 'holy spirit' moving over the waters...in that context its once again seen as a powerful force.
I believe in us, the spirit acts as a force that brings us to life. Adam didnt come to life until God had breathed into his lungs the 'breath of life'... the ruach.


While I agree that your breath has no consciousness to it, I believe that your spirit is far more than just air. I believe that your spirit is your life force and that your life force is, in turn, your consciousness. And God's spirit is most certainly more than air, in my opinion.

yes of course his spirit is not simply air.... but it is 'like' air in that it is invisible to our sight, yet it exerts a powerful influence on whatever it comes into contact with. I lean toward our lifeforce being powered by God spirit...hence why it returns to God when we die.

Thanks for your explanation. It's nice that we've been able to keep this dialogue civil. Maybe we've both had enough practice being insulted by the mainstream Christian population to know that it makes a lot more sense to try to discuss our differences respectfully. I hope we can continue in this vein.

i will do my best :angel2:
 

Nails

Member
I'm "almost" with Pegg on this one. :) The meaning of the Luke 23 account is distorted because of a simple error in grammar. The comma, which follows Christ’s lead-in statement, "Verily, I say unto you…" was inserted and misplaced by men. It changed His entire meaning. The original Greek did not use commas and quotation marks. Translators using their own discretion added them later. The correct rendering is, "Verily, I say unto you today [in other words, "I tell you right now"], shall you be with Me in Paradise."

The Bible tells us there are three resurrections (Rev. 20:4-15). Since the thief obviously had not been baptized and given God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), he cannot be among those raised in the First Resurrection (I Thes. 4:16). Since Christ did not condemn him, we know that he will not be raised in the Third Resurrection, which is for those who would not repent. These will all be destroyed (Rev. 20:6, 14-15). The thief will receive his opportunity for salvation in the Second Resurrection, to take place after the millennium (Rev. 20:5, 11-12). After 1,000 years of the whole world living according to God's laws with Christ and His Saints at the helm and satan out of the picture, the world will truly be a "paradise."

What are the "three" resurrections again? 1 Thes 4:16 is the same as Rev 20:4. Later, after the 1000 years, the rest are judged (Rev 20:12).
 

Nails

Member
The Bible tells us there are three resurrections (Rev. 20:4-15). Since the thief obviously had not been baptized and given God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), he cannot be among those raised in the First Resurrection (I Thes. 4:16). Since Christ did not condemn him, we know that he will not be raised in the Third Resurrection, which is for those who would not repent. These will all be destroyed (Rev. 20:6, 14-15). The thief will receive his opportunity for salvation in the Second Resurrection, to take place after the millennium (Rev. 20:5, 11-12). After 1,000 years of the whole world living according to God's laws with Christ and His Saints at the helm and satan out of the picture, the world will truly be a "paradise."

Apologies, I reread your post and now I think I understand a little better what you were saying. I think there are only two resurrections, the first being that of believers, and the second that of non-believers.

The question of the thief on the cross is interesting. I see it as a technicality that Jesus had not yet been resurrected yet because, if Jesus is God, He knows a mans heart and that what he says is sincere. It is true that the original Greek has no punctuation, and I don't fully understnd how the comma placement can change the meaning drastically, especially in light of the fact that there were no commas to begin with; ie you can put the comma wherever you want or leave it out altogether.

Jesus said 'today you will be with me in paradise', and I see no good reason to believe any other interpretation, but to take His words literally. I am also of the persuasion that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith.

The question which remains for me is one I have had for a long time. What happens to a believer immediately after death? Jesus told the thief today you will be in paradise. Does that mean that he, the thief dies, then, as if he were sleeping, wakes up and is with Christ at the milennium period (or the white throne judgment depending on your theology) or, as Catholics profess is there a purgatory like conscious holding area?

My scriptural interpretation leads me to believe there is a sleeping state after physical death, to be awakened by Christ at the start of the millennial reign (1 Thes 4:16, Rev 20:4). And I believe I will meet the thief on the cross there as well.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
All for you, James, even though I was very, very tired... ;)

Thank you for becoming a "living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1) :)

James, which verse in Revelation 20:4-15 speaks of a third resurrection? I’m trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that there will be any more than two resurrections – one at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign and the other at the end of that reign. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see Revelation 20:4-15 as referring to a Third Resurrection at all. I see the repentant thief as rising in the First Resurrection, as I have explained.

2. A careful read of Revelation chapter 20 will reveal more information than meets the eye. Verse 6 gives us info on the first resurrection. We both agree that is exclusive to those who have overcome in this age.

Verse 5 gives us important details about the 2nd resurrection. After the 1,000 years have expired, the "rest of the dead" are those who lived during this 6,000 year dispensation without a fair opportunity to know the only name by which to attain salvation (Acts 4:12). They will be resurrected to physical mortal life along with the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah (Matt 10:15) Tyre, Sidon, Bethsaida, Chorazin (Mat 11:21-22) Nineveh, the Queen of Sheba (Mat 12:41-42). This 2nd resurrection is described as a period of judgment which Isa 65:20 hints could be as long as 100 years. They will be judged [not condemned] according to their works and obedience to what is written in the "books" of the bible (vs 11-12) much in the same way Christians are being judged today (1 Pet 4:17).

Now consider vs 13: "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works." This is yet another resurrection! Most likely after the 100 yr judgment period. Notice there is no statement that the "book of life" is opened to this group. Why? Simply because they must have already had their chance for salvation and rejected it! God will not force anyone to choose his way of life.

The last human beings will be resurrected to physical mortal life from their graves which could have been at sea (where they may have perished in their first life); from death (without burial in their first life); or from a hole in the ground [hades]. They will lamentably be sentenced and executed in the lake of fire (vs 14-15) which at this point will engulf the whole earth (2 Pet 3:7) This is the dreaded second death to which there is no resurrection. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man illustrates the essence of this 3rd resurrection.

What do you mean, “obviously”? Are you saying that someone who had been baptized could not possibly be guilty of theft? I would agree that the likelihood that he’d been baptized is probably not all that great, but is certainly isn’t “obvious.” According to my belief, after the thief died, since he had repented of his sins and acknowledged Christ as someone who had the power to save him, his soul would have entered a place of peace and rest after leaving his body at death.This place was referred to by Jesus Christ as “paradise.” Having taken the first two steps towards salvation – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance for his sins – he would indeed rise in the First Resurrection.

3. To imply the thief will come up in the first resurrection would contradict every thing Jesus and the Apostles taught about salvation--that it would be difficult (Matt 7:14), full of trials, hardship, and tribulation (Acts 14:22). Those in the first resurrection would have been tried and tested in this life and had to endure and overcome before given the awesome responsibility of possessing a powerful, eternal, spirit body (Rev 2:26). There is no way the few words uttered by the thief, moments before his death, would satisfy these criteria. Now for him to be resurrected, after the millennium, when the effect of obeying God's laws would have transformed the earth to a beautiful paradise, then be given a period of time to be tested and proven, with Christ and the saints assisting him along the way. This scenario would render Christ's reply to the thief more inline with biblical teaching.

Though his body would have remained in the grave, his spirit would have continued to exist as a cognizant entity, and once in paradise, he would have had the opportunity to learn of God’s plan of salvation and to receive (by proxy) the ordinances (or sacraments) of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (I’m going with your assumption that he had not been baptized during his life, although I do believe it to have been a possibility). Then, when Christ returns and the Millennium begins, his mortal body will be resurrected and made perfect and immortal. His spirit will re-enter it, giving it new, eternal life.

4. The belief that our soul or spirit is conscious independent from the body is commonly known as the immortal soul doctrine. It was first introduced by the devil himself when he told Eve, "You shall not surely die." It was adopted by the Greeks from the Egyptians (see book of the dead) which was later embraced by the Jews and perpetuated by mainstream Christianity. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament will you find this idea of an immortal spirit conscious outside the human body. Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, the concept of an immortal soul is illogical. If man had an immortal conscious spirit, what benefit and or need would there be to reunite an already living, conscious, coherent entity with a dead one through a resurrection?

But, let’s consider the fate of the other thief, the one who died without having repented. As happened with the first thief, his spirit would have left his body at death. But his spirit would not have been received into paradise but into hell or prison. During the period of time between his death and his resurrection, he would have also been given the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught to the spirits in the spirit world by those who had accepted it while on earth. It is altogether possible that he would have never known anything about Jesus Christ during his life, and may very well have seen the man, Jesus, for the first time as they hung dying together. If during the time when he awaits his resurrection, he comes to repent of his sins and accept Jesus Christ, acknowledging him as his Savior, he will have been released from hell and be allowed to spend the remaining time until his resurrection in the state of paradise. So far, he’s had about two thousand years to suffer and to think things over.


5. You must be referring to 1 Pet 3:19. Some Christians maintain the tradition that Christ was preaching to departed human "spirits in prison" while He was in "hell." That idea is simply not scriptural. Verse 20 makes it plain that those to whom Christ preached (concerning their rebellious activities on earth) were demon spirits which were, and still are, in a type of spiritual prison and that He preached to them during the days of Noah. Notice how 2 Pet 2:4-5 parallels and expounds on the meaning of 1 Pet 3:19-20:

1Pet 3:19-20 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

2 Pet 2:4-5 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [tartarus]and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

The Greek word translated "hell" in vs 4 is "tartaroo" or "tartarus" . Notice what Vine's Expository Bible Dictionary has to say:

"The verb tartaroo, translated "cast down to hell" in 2Pe_2:4, signifies to consign to Tartarus, which is neither Sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage are confined "to be reserved unto judgment"; the region is described as "pits of darkness."​

1 Pet 3:19-20 is not talking about the three days and nights Jesus was dead in the grave at all! He was in "hell" or "tartarus", during the days of Noah, preaching to the demon spirits confined there! This is the only time in the whole NT the term "hell" is referred to as "tartarus" and it's distinctly referring to demon spirits not unrepentant human spirits!
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Apologies, I reread your post and now I think I understand a little better what you were saying. I think there are only two resurrections, the first being that of believers, and the second that of non-believers.

The bible implicates two "groups" of people will be resurrected, the "just and unjust" (Acts 24:15) but not necessarily in two resurrections.
The "unjust" will comprise of two separate resurrections as outlined in Rev 20.

The question of the thief on the cross is interesting. I see it as a technicality that Jesus had not yet been resurrected yet because, if Jesus is God, He knows a mans heart and that what he says is sincere. It is true that the original Greek has no punctuation, and I don't fully understnd how the comma placement can change the meaning drastically, especially in light of the fact that there were no commas to begin with; ie you can put the comma wherever you want or leave it out altogether.

Jesus said 'today you will be with me in paradise', and I see no good reason to believe any other interpretation, but to take His words literally. I am also of the persuasion that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith.

See my reply to Katzpur in post 17.

The question which remains for me is one I have had for a long time. What happens to a believer immediately after death? Jesus told the thief today you will be in paradise. Does that mean that he, the thief dies, then, as if he were sleeping, wakes up and is with Christ at the milennium period (or the white throne judgment depending on your theology) or, as Catholics profess is there a purgatory like conscious holding area?

My scriptural interpretation leads me to believe there is a sleeping state after physical death, to be awakened by Christ at the start of the millennial reign (1 Thes 4:16, Rev 20:4). And I believe I will meet the thief on the cross there as well.

The state of death was often referred to by Christ and the apostles as sleep. When you go to sleep and wake up the next morning, it feels like an instant. There is no concept of time in that state. (Job 14:21; Isa 63:16; Ps 146:4)

The moment any person loses consciousness immediately upon death, it will literally seem like a split second when they regain consciousness-- no matter how long they were dead-- in one of the three resurrections.

An illustration of this concept is exemplified in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man was resurrected in the third resurrection, thousands of years after his death, yet we find him pleading to to warn his brothers who were long dead. He had no concept of the passing of time. He awoke just where his thoughts ended! (Luk 16:27-31)
 

Nails

Member
Thank you for becoming a "living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1) :)



2. A careful read of Revelation chapter 20 will reveal more information than meets the eye. Verse 6 gives us info on the first resurrection. We both agree that is exclusive to those who have overcome in this age.

Verse 5 gives us important details about the 2nd resurrection. After the 1,000 years have expired, the "rest of the dead" are those who lived during this 6,000 year dispensation without a fair opportunity to know the only name by which to attain salvation (Acts 4:12). They will be resurrected to physical mortal life along with the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah (Matt 10:15) Tyre, Sidon, Bethsaida, Chorazin (Mat 11:21-22) Nineveh, the Queen of Sheba (Mat 12:41-42). This 2nd resurrection is described as a period of judgment which Isa 65:20 hints could be as long as 100 years. They will be judged [not condemned] according to their works and obedience to what is written in the "books" of the bible (vs 11-12) much in the same way Christians are being judged today (1 Pet 4:17).

Now consider vs 13: "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works." This is yet another resurrection! Most likely after the 100 yr judgment period. Notice there is no statement that the "book of life" is opened to this group. Why? Simply because they must have already had their chance for salvation and rejected it! God will not force anyone to choose his way of life.

The last human beings will be resurrected to physical mortal life from their graves which could have been at sea (where they may have perished in their first life); from death (without burial in their first life); or from a hole in the ground [hades]. They will lamentably be sentenced and executed in the lake of fire (vs 14-15) which at this point will engulf the whole earth (2 Pet 3:7) This is the dreaded second death to which there is no resurrection. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man illustrates the essence of this 3rd resurrection.

I think you are reaching for things which just aren't there. the text implies that those taken from the sea are involved in the throne judgment, and I see no reason to think otherwise. Two resurrections.

3. To imply the thief will come up in the first resurrection would contradict every thing Jesus and the Apostles taught about salvation--that it would be difficult (Matt 7:14), full of trials, hardship, and tribulation (Acts 14:22). Those in the first resurrection would have been tried and tested in this life and had to endure and overcome before given the awesome responsibility of possessing a powerful, eternal, spirit body (Rev 2:26). There is no way the few words uttered by the thief, moments before his death, would satisfy these criteria. Now for him to be resurrected, after the millennium, when the effect of obeying God's laws would have transformed the earth to a beautiful paradise, then be given a period of time to be tested and proven, with Christ and the saints assisting him along the way. This scenario would render Christ's reply to the thief more inline with biblical teaching.

Salvation is not difficult (Rom 10:9). To say that trials and tribulations are required is to say that God loves Paul more than you or I. Not true, for God is impartial. The ground is level at the foot of the cross, my friend, and He loves all equally to include those who believe and those who do not.
4. The belief that our soul or spirit is conscious independent from the body is commonly known as the immortal soul doctrine. It was first introduced by the devil himself when he told Eve, "You shall not surely die." It was adopted by the Greeks from the Egyptians (see book of the dead) which was later embraced by the Jews and perpetuated by mainstream Christianity. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament will you find this idea of an immortal spirit conscious outside the human body. Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, the concept of an immortal soul is illogical. If man had an immortal conscious spirit, what benefit and or need would there be to reunite an already living, conscious, coherent entity with a dead one through a resurrection?

If there is no immortal soul, what happens to those believers whose bodies are burned, or annihilated? If there is no soul or spirit apart from the body, why would Peter refer to his body as a tent to be put off (2 Pet 1:14 NKJV)? What about the major flesh/spirit dichotomy taught by Paul? The spirit must be capable of existing independently of the physical body, otherwise there could be no glorification. The flesh is physical and will die. When the believer is resurrected he will receive a glorified body. This is a new physical body, not the one which you had when you died. It has been transformed; the same but different.
 

Nails

Member
The state of death was often referred to by Christ and the apostles as sleep. When you go to sleep and wake up the next morning, it feels like an instant. There is no concept of time in that state. (Job 14:21; Isa 63:16; Ps 146:4)

The moment any person loses consciousness immediately upon death, it will literally seem like a split second when they regain consciousness-- no matter how long they were dead-- in one of the three resurrections.

An illustration of this concept is exemplified in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man was resurrected in the third resurrection, thousands of years after his death, yet we find him pleading to to warn his brothers who were long dead. He had no concept of the passing of time. He awoke just where his thoughts ended! (Luk 16:27-31)

Thanks for pointing out the Lazarus passage! That makes perfect sense to me now, and affirms my thought.
 
Top