My "modernist trash" doesn't mean your "revisionist trash" is correct. Your whole argument is based on a legend concocted by the Church centuries after the fact, and on the faulty presumption that a 1st century Greek thief in Palestine would have known something about the Torah.
Your argument also dismisses the obvious flaw, namely that the Jesus' statement on the cross does not follow the thief's petition. Your argument ignores the fact that heaven is not mentioned, or that paradise is not heaven. Your argument ignores the fact that no matter how the Church tried to convolute this story Jesus' kingdom is not paradise, unless Jesus' name is Hades. Your argument ignores the fact that Jesus' promise was not kept according to the what the Church teaches. Your argument ignores the fact that the concept of Paradise as the Garden of Eden was not the belief of the Jews or the Early Christians, although the Hebrew word for "garden" (any garden) is a derivative of the Persian word otherwise known as paradise.
I base nothing on Dismas being the certifiable name of the Good Thief.
That Jesus does not answer the petition directly is not atypical. In today’s readings, for example, someone tells Jesus that he intends to follow Him, to whcih Jesus replies “birds have nests...”
I see Jesus’s statement to the Thief perfectly fulfilling the task, to assure him of supernatural happiness that awaits the elect upon death.