You're welcome to think what you want to think.
To you.
Yes, I understand your line of thought.
No need; we've been through it several times before. Rest assured that what you think of my assertions is returned in full.
And I'll add, too, Zao, that your assertions about amillennialism itself are wrong, a case in point being your statement that "God quickens the dead body (imparts everlasting life) through "the resurrection of the human spirit" is wrong... and even confusing in and of itself, frankly. This seems just another way to phrase your "conflating new birth with resurrection" thing, which is just kind of a mishmash of things and thus ridiculous. What I am
of is whether it's inadvertent on your part or intentional. Either way, it is what it is.
This we would disagree on also, if you what you really mean what this seems to mean on its face. Christ was not quickened as we are, He was not brought from death in sin to life in Christ as we are. This would at least
seem to be a denial that Christ is God, which I hope is not the case.
Your objection here is a bit puzzling. It is what it is. What do you want me to say or not say about it? Sure, they
"had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands." My question to you, Zao, would be,
why were they "giving testimony of Jesus and for the word of God" and not worshiping "the beast or its image" and "had not received its mark?"
Why do you suppose that is, Zao?
Again, I'm not really sure what the objection here is. Yes, John saw the souls of those we are talking about. Seems to me ~ and you'll probably scoff at this, I guess, but no matter ~ the gulf between us is John's
seeing them. This is a vision that he's being given, right. I'll leave that right there...
But ignoring it, or denying it, or... however else you might (mis)characterize it? No... No, I'm not doing that, Zao... Not in the least...
So again, these two... see directly above.
Regarding Revelation 20, no, the second resurrection, which is in view in verses 11-13 ~ having happened just prior to what we "see" there ~ is that. The word 'anastasis' in verses 5-6 is directly correlated with what Paul says about us having been raised up with Christ in Ephesians 2:6 (as I have said many times). And I'll answer the question I posed to you above here: The "those" referred to in Revelation 20:4 were raised up ~ in the vernacular of Paul in Ephesians 2:6 ~ in the same way we are today. They were born again and
thus ~ were then, or were subsequently, if you want to insist on that ~ raised up in Christ, and thus were saved, in the same way we are today. This is why they were giving testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God.
In your opinion. Sure. Get that...
No, I'm certainly not "confused," but I have no problem with you thinking that.
My identity is in Christ. As I hope yours is. Hmm, I "believe Scripture contradicts Scripture"? That's quite a ridiculous assertion, especially since I've spent more time than should be necessary talking specifically about how seemingly disparate passages of Scripture correlate intensely. That's been a very large part of the points I have made. And the irony is that I would say you inadvertently do
the very thing you attribute to me. But, so be it.
Grace and peace to you, Zao.