As I understand it… one purpose for “the resurrection of the just” was that they might receive their due rewards… the subject of the context. We know also from Luke’s further account in Acts that… “the resurrection of the just and unjust” was on their near expectant horizon — Luke uses the Greek word <μέλλω> mellō commonly rendered… about to.
Thus the resurrection of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15) would equate to and be the culmination of John’s resurrection unto life or condemnation of Jn 5:25, 29. Said life or condemnation are NOT eternal destinies stuff BUT relative to the “rewards” or their loss associated with the parousia… each according to their deeds aka works, i.e., the good or evil they had done.
This may be a factor in the writer of Heb 11:35 “better resurrection” as in that of the firstfruit martyrs who were promised specific rewards, e.g., Rev 2:10; 6:11.
No, that’s not my current understanding. I understand the resurrection to have to do with the physical body (our “earthsuit”) coming back to life; immediately followed by the transformation of the physical body from perishable to imperishable in order for it to be able to enter heaven, at the last trumpet:
1Co 15:42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;1Co 15:50-52
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep [die physically], but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
My understanding is that at physical death, the believer’s spirit / and soul / and awareness do not stay dead or asleep with the perishable physical body.
Would you not agree there is an expectancy implied in the following passage of an immediate ascension of the spirit to Christ, although without the body?:
Act 7:56, 59-60
“Look,” he [Stephen] said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
…While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep [physically died].
In distinguishing between body and spirit, Paul seems to indicate that the spirit does not require the body for awareness of others, nor for awareness and enjoyment of the Lord:
Col 2:5
For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.2Co 5:8
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.Philippians 1:23-24
I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be [immediately] with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Hrmano said:
No, that’s not my current understanding. I understand the resurrection to have to do with the physical body (our “earthsuit”) coming back to life; immediately followed by the transformation of the physical body from perishable to imperishable in order for it to be able to enter heaven, at the last trumpet:
Good, The problem is that the Parousia (your idea of the last trumpet or the second coming) has already happened in some of our views. Good luck.
I am a futurist and not a preterist. Because, for example,
-I don’t believe the seventh/last trumpet has yet sounded; after all, my natural body has obviously not yet become an immortal spiritual body, it is still flesh and blood:
1Co 15:42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable.1Co 15:44
It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.1Co 15:50-52
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep [die physically], but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
-I don’t believe the seventh/last trumpet has yet sounded: after all, “the kingdoms of this world” have obviously not yet become “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ”:
Rev 11:15
Then the seventh angel sounded [his trumpet]: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
There are those that have posted above that could well be full of bovine feces… 
We die… And we realize God, and God has all kinds of great things for us to experience and understand.
Plain and simple as that. 
Get after it if you want to deny my position…
Origen, why are you talking about “soul sleep”? I have never met anyone during all the 80 years of my life that believes in “soul sleep.” However, I have met many people who believe your “soul” or “spirit” is the “real you,” that you inhabit your body until you die, and then you go somewhere after your death. These people seem to think that those of us who believe that when you die, you REALLY die; you’re dead, and you’ll stay dead until Jesus raises you to life again at the last day, believe in “soul sleep.” We don’t. We believe that when you die, you no longer exist until you are raised from death at the last day. And it won’t be a copy of you. It will be YOU. That’s what it means to be raised from death.
When Jesus died, His “soul” or “spirit” didn’t go to heaven. After God raised Him from the dead, He said to Mary, "“Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17). If Jesus’ “soul” didn’t go immediately to God in heaven—if He had to stay dead in the grave for 3 days, why do we expect to go to heaven immediately after we die. Indeed, if this were true, why bother with a resurrection at all? Why not live happily in heaven forever as disembodied spirits?
In your view Paidion what is your understanding or position on Paul’s words here relative to what you’ve just shared above?
2Cor 5:6, 8 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. — We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
Or perhaps Jesus’ words here…
Mk 12:26-27 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly deceived.”
Origen wrote:
Does the soul continue to interact between physical death and the resurrection? These verses teach that:
(1) Unbelievers:
In hell are conscious and in torment (Luke 16:23);
The quote:
… and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus described Hades as the abode of the dead after death. This was a common view among the Jews in Jesus’ day. The (non-Christian) Jewish historian, Josephus (A.D 70-100) wrote a discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades. He describes it much the same as Jesus did in his parable, except in much greater detail. Jesus used this common Jewish belief as a basis for his story to show that even if it were possible for Jewish people of God to come back from the dead, their relatives and friends would not repent and believe.
Origen quoted: Are “under punishment [after death] until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9);
An incorrect translation. Here is a correct one:
The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
Here is an interlinear for your consideration:
οιδεν—κυριος— ευσεβεις εκ πειρασμου ρυεσθαι— αδικους
knows the Lord- devout—out of trial—— to deliver-unrighteous
δε -εις —ημεραν κρισεως—— κολαζομενους τηρειν
but into a day—- of judgment to be corrected to keep (2 Peter 2:9)
Origen wrote:(2) Believers:
Are immediately in Paradise at death (Luke 23:43);
The quote:
And he said to him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
In Greek, there is no punctuation. But those who translated this sentence into English have inserted a comma after “you.” Only in that way will it support your statement about going to Paradise at death. But suppose the comma were placed AFTER “today.”
And he said to him, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”
This might indicate that the thief on the cross would be in Paradise with Jesus at a future date. Some have said, "People don’t talk that way—‘I tell you today.’ " But they DO! Haven’t you ever heard someone say, “I’m telling you right now!”?
Origen wrote: Long for a heavenly dwelling (2 Cor. 5:2);
Yes, our heavenly dwelling will be our resurrected bodies.
Origen wrote
Are away from the body [at death] and are at home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8);
No. Paul didn’t say that! He said:
We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
That is, we would rather be away from this mortal body [at death] and be at home with the Lord [in our resurrection bodies when we are raised from death].
Origen wrote:
Deaths are gain (Phil. 1:21)
Yes, Paul said “to die is gain” since the next thing of which Paul will be aware is being with Christ in the resurrection.
Origen wrote:
and they depart at death to “be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23);
Again, Paul said it was his desire to depart [this life] and be with Christ [in the resurrection]. It will be the next thing Paul will know.
We need to read the whole context. Jesus was talking to the Sadducees who say there in no resurrection. The Sadducees described a scenario where a woman had 7 husbands in succession. Then they asked, "In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?"
Jesus answer was all about showing that there will be a resurrection of the dead. His final words began with “As for the dead being raised, have you not read…” He was not about to talk about the present state of the dead, but the future state,when they will be resurrected.
Thus His final words were: “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” In other words, they are not going to remain dead; they will live again.
Those weren’t my words, but a quote of someone else from another topic i linked to. Soul sleep was addressed & defined in post #11 of this thread.
If you no longer exist, then how can the you that is resurrected not be a copy or recreation of the you that used to exist?
What would be the point of a saved person ceasing to exist for thousands of years? To what purpose? Did Jesus not say he would never leave us?
“Once a soul has been created, this unique spirit… what would be the purpose of God taking the batteries out of us, so to speak, and essentially turning us off for a period of time?”
Do you believe that when Jesus died He ceased to exist?
AFAIK the common views (RC, EO, Protestant) are that when Jesus died He went either (1) to speak to the spirits in prison (1 Pet.3:18-20; 4:6) or (2) to paradise (Lk.23:43; 16:19-31) or (3) both. Alternatively, as distinct from going to heaven, it is conceivable He may have also (4) spent some time on earth. Or (5) John 20:17 refers to a bodily ascension.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm
One answer could be that we don’t have business to take care of in other places as Jesus did when He died. Neither do we have to suffer & die on a cross as He did for the sins of the world.
What credible theologians agree with your highly unnatural and unconvincing reading of that text? I think the context probably gives greater weight to the standard reading and accepted understanding, as per…
The Greek word translated “when” or “whenever” is <ὅταν> hotan. Thus Jesus’ rejoinder to the thief’s petition of… “whenever it is you come into your kingly reign…” Jesus’ categorical reply is… “today” i.e., henceforth or hereafter or from now on etc. IOW… from that point forward this thief would be part of all that was to be involved with Jesus’ ascending to his throne of majesty.
Also note, NOT ONE translation HERE has your reading. You might also consider this HERE.
Further to that… consider how unusual and unnatural these texts below read applying your peculiar rationale…
Lk 13:32 And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures; today and tomorrow and the third day I shall be perfected.’
Lk 19:9 And Jesus said to him today, “Salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.”
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son today, I have begotten You”?
It doesn’t work.
Davo, do an internet search for “the comma in Luke 13.”
That which I proposed in not that unusual.
The following quotes are from this discussion:https://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-are-so-many-christians-against-annihilation-in-hell-when-scripture-supports-it.8072784/
[QUOTE=“Der Alter, post: 72959325, member: 11484”]I derive my view from these three passages.
In Isa 14 there is a long passage about the king of Babylon dying, according to many the dead know nothing. They are supposedly annihilated, destroyed, pfft, gone! But God, Himself, speaking, these dead people in שאול/sheol, know something, they move, meet the dead coming to sheol, stir up, raise up, speak and say, etc.
Isa 14:9-11 (KJV)
9) Hell [שאול ] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11) Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [שאול] and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
[ . . . ]
22) For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
In this passage God, himself is speaking, and I see a whole lot of shaking going on, moving, rising up, and speaking in . These dead people seem to know something, about something. We know that verses 11 through 14 describe actual historical events, the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
Some will try to argue that this passage is figurative because fir trees don’t literally rejoice, vs. 8. They will try to argue that the passage must be figurative since God told Israel “take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” vs. 4. The occurrence of one figurative expression in a passage does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative.
…The Hebrew word שאול/mashal translated “proverb” does not necessarily mean something is fictional. For example, Israel did not become fictional when God made them a mashal/proverb in 2 Chronicles 7:20, Psalms 44:14, and Jeremiah 24:9.
…Here is another passage where God Himself is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc.
Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול] with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.
22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
Eze 32:30-31
(30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
(31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.
In the New Testament Jesus speaking, a dead man in Hades had eyes, was in torment, saw Abraham, “cried and said,” asked for water, begged Abraham, etc.
Luk 16:22-28
(22) And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
(23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
(27) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
(28) For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=“Der Alter, post: 72959325, member: 11484”]
Yes, as a matter of fact there is a rule for parables. The Greek word παραβολή/parabolé means to lay or place beside. Thus a parable compares one thing which is not
known or understood to another thing which is known or understood.
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood…” (John 6:54 [NIV])
Cannot be a parable it does not compare two things.
Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. It is not introduced as a parable. It does not compare two things. As already stated it names a specific historical person by name, Abraham. If Abraham was not in the place and did not say the words Jesus said Jesus was lying. And Jesus did not explain the story later to his disciples.
All of the early church fathers who quoted or referred to the story considered it factual. Including Ireneaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John If one thinks the the ECF are wrong they will have to prove it not just say the ECF are wrong.
• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, 120-202 AD, was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.
- The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position , and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
• Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
• Tertullian Part First [A.D. 145-220.] - A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
• The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.
To be sure… I didn’t mean unusual as in rare or unfamiliar but rather, peculiar.
So, I did an internet search and the first cab off the rank rejects the standard reading due primarily to theological inclinations NOT the text… that’s just poor form IMO — doctrinal dogma (in this case because the author feels the standard reading makes way for what they are adverse to, i.e., the immortality of the soul) driving the text beyond what it just plainly says.
The Second article put the case for both sides of the equation, but I have to say the case FOR the standard reading was straightforward and obvious to grasp.
The next link was a discussion board likewise expressing views either side of the argument, with one respondent noting… “the phrase “I tell you the truth,…” is a fixed idiom” meaning that which follow was an emphatic statement — in this case, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”
The next link IMO made a good and logical case for the standard reading. Let me quote a few paragraphs…
However, the fact remains that our modern linguists (who have LOTS more manuscripts to work with and to translate from than even the scholars working under the rule of King James – circa 1604-1611 A.D.) have consistently translated the phrase (idiom) ‘Truly I tell you’/’Truly, Truly I tell you’ with the comma placed AFTER the YOU in the phrase.
Further, when Jesus uttered the words, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” is the only sentence construction that makes rational sense. Otherwise, it would be a redundancy (i.e., if you and I were talking TODAY I wouldn’t have to tell you it WAS TODAY – it would be apparent).
So, since it would have been obvious to the listener (i.e., the thief) that it WAS TODAY that Jesus was speaking to him to utter the words thusly makes zero sense: “Truly I tell you TODAY, you will be with me in paradise.”
Again… check out ALL the instances below of ‘Truly I say to you,…” noting the natural comma that then precedes the particular statement or truth given.
The text doesn’t “plainly say” that the thief will be with Christ that same day, unless you insist that there HAS TO BE a comma before “today.” But there is no comma or any other standard punctuation in Greek. I could as well say that YOUR reading is due to “doctrinal dogma.” For it is no more “what the text plainly says” than mine.
No. That’s soul non-existence.
How do you know that?
Certainly… it would appear so.
Well judging by conventional wisdom, logic and the VAST array of translations rendering it so, I’m fairly confident that the majority view stands correct and of sound understanding. Certainly, this view does NOT need nor have ANY doctrinal views driving it… it simply follows the natural and logical flow of the text, AS PER all the evidence I and others have produced. As always, you are certainly free to believe contrariwise.