Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[Timtofly]

You are unable to back up your views with scripture and that is why you have to resort to insults.

Please tell me how you interpret this passage:

Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.

Exactly what my post said, that you just brushed off without answering any of my questions. On our own righteousness we are bound in death. In Christ we are alive. One day we will have an incorruptible body, immediately upon physical death. We do not sit in Paradise until we stop sitting on earth. There is no lay over in death any where. This soul goes from one physical body to the next physical body. Until physical death we are quickened by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 2:4-6 is one of many proofs to my point. I doubt you will ever give your interpretation, because I keep asking in many different ways. You use the word "spiritual" but you never define it. When I do, you demand scriptural proof. God created spiritual and physical as one reality. There is no difference between the two. When Adam disobeyed God, that changed. Spiritual was separated from physical. But only to those alive.

Even those in sheol understand this. Why is it hard for living humanity to grasp this simple fact of God's creation? Using the term spiritual for every aspect of life has removed from human understanding, God's Word, and put it out of reach. Only those pulling this spiritual misunderstanding over people's ability to think, think they are in the know. Yet when pressed, all they can say is, "It is all spiritual and beyond us".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Exactly what my post said, that you just brushed off without answering any of my questions. On our own righteousness we are bound in death. In Christ we are alive.

In Christ we are spiritually alive right now rather than dead in our transgressions and sins, right?

One day we will have an incorruptible body, immediately upon physical death.

That is not what Paul taught here:

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Tell me how your view lines up with that Paul taught here. He indicated here that we will all be changed and have incorruptible bodies at the same time, which will be at the last trumpet when the dead in Christ are raised at Christ's second coming (1 Cor 15:20-23) and we then inherit the kingdom of God. That contradicts your doctrine.

The time when we inherit the kingdom of God is described in Matthew 25:31-46. Do you think what is described in Matthew 25:31-46 happens each time a believer dies? Do you believe the last trumpet sounds every time a believer dies?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Exactly what my post said, that you just brushed off without answering any of my questions. On our own righteousness we are bound in death. In Christ we are alive. One day we will have an incorruptible body, immediately upon physical death. We do not sit in Paradise until we stop sitting on earth. There is no lay over in death any where. This soul goes from one physical body to the next physical body. Until physical death we are quickened by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 2:4-6 is one of many proofs to my point. I doubt you will ever give your interpretation, because I keep asking in many different ways. You use the word "spiritual" but you never define it. When I do, you demand scriptural proof. God created spiritual and physical as one reality. There is no difference between the two. When Adam disobeyed God, that changed. Spiritual was separated from physical. But only to those alive.

Even those in sheol understand this. Why is it hard for living humanity to grasp this simple fact of God's creation? Using the term spiritual for every aspect of life has removed from human understanding, God's Word, and put it out of reach. Only those pulling this spiritual misunderstanding over people's ability to think, think they are in the know. Yet when pressed, all they can say is, "It is all spiritual and beyond us".

Instead of just repeatedly voicing your own opinions, can you show us Scripture that proves "we will have an incorruptible body, immediately upon physical death"?

 

[Timtofly]

In Christ we are spiritually alive right now rather than dead in our transgressions and sins, right?

That is not what Paul taught here:

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Tell me how your view lines up with that Paul taught here. He indicated here that we will all be changed and have incorruptible bodies at the same time, which will be at the last trumpet when the dead in Christ are raised at Christ's second coming (1 Cor 15:20-23) and we then inherit the kingdom of God. That contradicts your doctrine.

The time when we inherit the kingdom of God is described in Matthew 25:31-46. Do you think what is described in Matthew 25:31-46 happens each time a believer dies? Do you believe the last trumpet sounds every time a believer dies?

You have to finish the puzzle with 2 Corinthians 5. They misunderstood as well, and had to be corrected. Why would God raise people from the dead and give them their old sinful flesh back? Such flesh is not allowed in Heaven or in the Day of the Lord. All resurrected bodies are incorruptible. Why do you claim some are not?

 

[Timtofly]

Instead of just repeatedly voicing your own opinions, can you show us Scripture that proves "we will have an incorruptible body, immediately upon physical death"?

2 Corinthians 5. It is posted in many of my post. Once again, it is not my opinion, it is the Apostle Paul's writing found in God's Word.

 

[BABerean2]

2 Corinthians 5. It is posted in many of my post. Once again, it is not my opinion, it is the Apostle Paul's writing found in God's Word.

The habitation of that passage is found below, and also in Revelation 3:12.


Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

----------------------------------------------

We see below that the "souls" of believers are found in heaven.


Rev_6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:


Rev_20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


.

 

[sovereigngrace]

2 Corinthians 5. It is posted in many of my post. Once again, it is not my opinion, it is the Apostle Paul's writing found in God's Word.

Please furnish us with verses.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You have to finish the puzzle with 2 Corinthians 5. They misunderstood as well, and had to be corrected. Why would God raise people from the dead and give them their old sinful flesh back? Such flesh is not allowed in Heaven or in the Day of the Lord. All resurrected bodies are incorruptible. Why do you claim some are not?

Are you saying you think Paul was mistaken in 1 Cor 15:50-54 when he said we would all be changed at the same time (at the last trumpet) and have incorruptible, immortal bodies at that time and then he later corrected himself in 2 Cor 5? I hope you don't think that because there are no mistakes and no contradictions in the Bible.

You need to make 1 Cor 15:50-54 and 2 Cor 5 agree with each other rather than interpret 2 Cor 5 in such a way that contradicts 1 Cor 15:50-54. You don't seem to understand that people's souls go to heaven when they die and their bodies go in the grave.

This was already pointed out by BABerean2, but I'm going to point out it again:

Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.

Rev 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Can you see that these passages clearly indicate that John saw the souls of the dead in Christ? He did not see them with immortal bodies, he only saw their souls. That is why Paul said "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". When we physically die, our souls separate from our bodies and go to heaven to be with the Lord there.

 

[DavidPT]

Rev 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Can you see that these passages clearly indicate that John saw the souls of the dead in Christ? He did not see them with immortal bodies, he only saw their souls. That is why Paul said "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". When we physically die, our souls separate from our bodies and go to heaven to be with the Lord there.

Do Amils think being depicted as resting under the altar in heaven is the exact same thing as being depicted as sitting on thrones in heaven reigning with Christ a thousand years there? After all, anyone co-reigning with someone like this would have to involve thrones, regardless that literal thrones are not meant.


IOW---is this---under the altar the souls of them that were slain--- that they should rest yet for a little season---meaning the exact same thing as this--- and I saw the souls of them---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years? Is resting and reigning the exact same thing? Are the souls recorded in the 5th seal depicted as resting or reigning?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Do Amils think being depicted as resting under the altar in heaven is the exact same thing as being depicted as sitting on thrones in heaven reigning with Christ a thousand years there? After all, anyone co-reigning with someone like this would have to involve thrones, regardless that literal thrones are not meant.


IOW---is this---under the altar the souls of them that were slain--- that they should rest yet for a little season---meaning the exact same thing as this--- and I saw the souls of them---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years? Is resting and reigning the exact same thing? Are the souls recorded in the 5th seal depicted as resting or reigning?

David, were you following the conversation at all? It had nothing to do with what you're talking about here.

Have you seen what Timtofly has been saying about his belief that when believers die they go to heaven with immortal bodies? We've been showing that he's contradicting 1 Cor 15:50-54 with his belief. So, the point in showing Rev 6:9 and Rev 20:4 was to show that it is only the souls of the dead in Christ who are in heaven and they do not yet have immortal bodies.

 

[DavidPT]

I've already asked you how verses like John 5:24 even hint of the possibility of someone losing their salvation and you haven't answered that. You know it doesn't. So, does that mean OSAS is true or do we need to look at scripture as a whole to determine that instead of drawing that conclusion from one verse the way you're drawing conclusions from the one verse in Rev 20:6?

I see that as a bit different, as opposed to Revelation 20:6. As to the latter, NOSAS is compatible with it only if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Premils take it to mean, but not if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Amils take it to mean. Per the latter, per Premil, that is meaning after someone has already physically died. Verse 4 in that same chapter proves it. There is not one person being depicted in verse 4 that are still physically alive when the first resurrection takes place. They are all depicted as already dead.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Where in this verse do you see it applying the first resurrection to someone who hasn't even died yet? The first resurrection is in regards to saints that have physically died, and not to saints who haven't even died yet. If the latter were also true, then why is there not a single mention of a group like this as well in that verse?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Do Amils think being depicted as resting under the altar in heaven is the exact same thing as being depicted as sitting on thrones in heaven reigning with Christ a thousand years there? After all, anyone co-reigning with someone like this would have to involve thrones, regardless that literal thrones are not meant.


IOW---is this---under the altar the souls of them that were slain--- that they should rest yet for a little season---meaning the exact same thing as this--- and I saw the souls of them---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years? Is resting and reigning the exact same thing? Are the souls recorded in the 5th seal depicted as resting or reigning?

These are figurative terms describing the state and position of God's people upon death. You don't seem to grasp that.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I see that as a bit different, as opposed to Revelation 20:6. As to the latter, NOSAS is compatible with it only if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Premils take it to mean, but not if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Amils take it to mean. Per the latter, per Premil, that is meaning after someone has already physically died. Verse 4 in that same chapter proves it. There is not one person being depicted in verse 4 that are still physically alive when the first resurrection takes place. They are all depicted as already dead.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Where in this verse do you see it applying the first resurrection to someone who hasn't even died yet? The first resurrection is in regards to saints that have physically died, and not to saints who haven't even died yet. If the latter were also true, then why is there not a single mention of a group like this as well in that verse?

Something happened 2000 years ago that you seem to overlook: Jesus defeated sin, death, Hades and Satan. Hell had no more hold upon the redeemed. Revelation 20 shows the dead in Christ now populating heaven instead of Hades. Hades (Abraham's bosom) has been emptied of God's elect since Christ conquered it. The dead were raised from Hades in spirit and are now reigning with Jesus. But the physical resurrection does not occur until Jesus comes to raise the living and the dead at His one final future climactic coming.

Christ was the first to defeat sin, death, the grave and Hades. He is the first resurrection. After His glorious resurrection, He testified in Revelation 1:18: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

Death and Hades are now defeated. The grave has been conquered. God's people who die go now to be with Jesus. Hades was emptied after the first resurrection. Jesus defeated sin, death, Hades and Satan through his first Advent. The dead in Christ now reign in heaven with Christ.

This spiritual resurrection occurs to all those who identify with Christ in His first resurrection when He conquered sin, death, Hades and Satan. His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection secured the full and eternal freedom of all His elect. This union with Christ raises us from the grave of our sin and allows us to be currently seated in heavenly places in Christ. Through this majesty work, Christ emptied Hades and led captivity captive taking them to heaven to reign with Him until the physical resurrection at His coming.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree with some of what you've said and disagree with the rest. What is hard to understand about that?

So am I. It's your inability to understand anything but your own view that is causing your confusion.

I have said repeatedly that the second death CURRENTLY has no power over the dead in Christ whose souls are currently in heaven. Do you agree with that or not?

I've also said repeatedly that the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ is not what is necessary to ensure that the second death has no power over them. The second death has no power over them right now and can't ever have any power over them in the future.

It is because the second death already has no power over them that they are reigning with Christ now in heaven and are guaranteed to be resurrected unto bodily immortality when Christ returns.

That is based on your PREMIL view, not amil. You need to set your premil view aside for a minute and look at this from an amil viewpoint in order to make that determination. But, you seem unable or unwilling to do that.

Not at all. Again, it is your lack of understanding of what amils (my version of amil, at least) believe that is leading you to this false conclusion.

I had already stated that those who died in Christ will be resurrected when He appears in glory. I had already stated that the 2nd death will have no power over those who died in Christ. I also mentioned that the 2nd death cannot come before the resurrection of those who died in Christ, and you asked me to state the obvious by asking me if I thought that the 2nd death would have power over those who had already died in Christ.

Note that the resurrection of those who died in Christ has not occurred yet. Note too, that the 2nd death will have no power over those who died in Christ - and because their resurrection is still future tense, the words '2nd death will have no power over those who died in Christ' is also still future tense - because the 2nd death has not become a reality yet, because the resurrection of those who died in Christ has not become a reality yet, and the 2nd death will have (future tense) no power over them.

It's the way it is now for us: We have already been raised from the dead with Christ but we will be raised from the dead.

From everything I had already said, you need not have asked me to state the obvious by asking me if I believe the 2nd death will have no power over those who died in Christ, when I already made it obvious.

Your asking me to state the obvious made me realize that I need to go back to basics with you, because you obviously don't see the obvious when I state it.

Don't ask me questions when my reply is obvious from what I had already stated, if you don't want me to state the obvious or take you back to basics so that you understand the basics, if you are just going to complain about my answer - because when you do that, your complaints are even more tedious than me stating the obvious when your requirement in your questions is that I state the obvious, or take you back to basics so that you don't ask me to say what I already said.

 

[Zao is life]

I see that as a bit different, as opposed to Revelation 20:6. As to the latter, NOSAS is compatible with it only if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Premils take it to mean, but not if the first resurrection is meaning when and what Amils take it to mean. Per the latter, per Premil, that is meaning after someone has already physically died. Verse 4 in that same chapter proves it. There is not one person being depicted in verse 4 that are still physically alive when the first resurrection takes place. They are all depicted as already dead.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Where in this verse do you see it applying the first resurrection to someone who hasn't even died yet? The first resurrection is in regards to saints that have physically died, and not to saints who haven't even died yet. If the latter were also true, then why is there not a single mention of a group like this as well in that verse?

So much 2+2 = 7.5 going on in these pages.

Will saints who are martyred by the beast for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, be martyred before or after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit?

Will the 2nd death have no power over those who died in Christ and are resurrected at his return? Is the 2nd death a reality for any human before the resurrection of the dead spoken of in the Revelation and which takes place at the time of the GWT?

How can those saints, who were martyred for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, live and reign with Christ for "a thousand years" before they were beheaded?

How can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to the beheaded saints of Revelation 20? The 2nd death has no power over them. So how can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to these beheaded saints if the 2nd death has no power over them?

 

[sovereigngrace]

So much 2+2 = 7.5 going on in these pages.

Will saints who are martyred by the beast for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, be martyred before or after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit?

Will the 2nd death have no power over those who died in Christ and are resurrected at his return? Is the 2nd death a reality for any human before the resurrection of the dead spoken of in the Revelation and which takes place at the time of the GWT?

How can those saints, who were martyred for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, live and reign with Christ for "a thousand years" before they were beheaded?

How can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to the beheaded saints of Revelation 20? The 2nd death has no power over them. So how can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to these beheaded saints if the 2nd death has no power over them?

Where your reasoning falls apart is that you are trying to rebut NOSAS Amils with your faulty Premil understanding of Revelation 20. That does not work. Premils do this a lot. Instead of asking Amils what they believe, you tell them what they believe, and then swat your straw man. This is why most never grasp Amil.

 

[DavidPT]

Will saints who are martyred by the beast for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, be martyred before or after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit?

According to Scripture and simple logic, thus one does not even need to be a genius to figure this out, it's obviously after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit. Do Amils agree or disagree with that? They apparently disagree with it. Maybe not all Amils though, since there are some Amils who are hyper Partial Preterists, who might at least have the events chronologically correct, yet still be wrong since they would have the timing of these events occurring during the wrong eras of time.

How can those saints, who were martyred for refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, live and reign with Christ for "a thousand years" before they were beheaded?

Premils think one is beheaded first, then resurrected. Amils apparently think one is spiritually resurrected first, then beheaded, then resurrected again, but this time bodily, though there is not a single place in all of Revelation 20 where it even hints at anyone having part in the first resurrection also having part in a future, different resurrection. Resurrection means to live again. One only needs to do that once, not twice. When Jesus lived again, did that involve Him being resurrected twice at different times, or did that only involve Him being resurrected just one time?

How can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to the beheaded saints of Revelation 20? The 2nd death has no power over them. So how can Amil be compatible with NOSAS in regards to these beheaded saints if the 2nd death has no power over them?

Amils invent another group not found in the texts. Anyone reading Revelation 20:4 can see that the only group in view, in regards to the first resurrection, are saints that have already physically died, and not also saints that have yet to physically die. If Amils disagree, and I'm sure they do, then they should be able to point out this other group somewhere in verses 4-6, saints that have yet to physically die. It can't be meaning any of these---the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Where is there this other group, saints that have yet to physically die, found in this text? I'm not seeing this other group myself.

 

[sovereigngrace]

According to Scripture and simple logic, thus one does not even need to be a genius to figure this out, it's obviously after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit. Do Amils agree or disagree with that? They apparently disagree with it. Maybe not all Amils though, since there are some Amils who are hyper Partial Preterists, who might at least have the events chronologically correct, yet still be wrong since they would have the timing of these events occurring during the wrong eras of time.



Premils think one is beheaded first, then resurrected. Amils apparently think one is spiritually resurrected first, then beheaded, then resurrected again, but this time bodily, though there is not a single place in all of Revelation 20 where it even hints at anyone having part in the first resurrection also having part in a future, different resurrection. Resurrection means to live again. One only needs to do that once, not twice. When Jesus lived again, did that involve Him being resurrected twice at different times, or did that only involve Him being resurrected just one time?



Amils invent another group not found in the texts. Anyone reading Revelation 20:4 can see that the only group in view, in regards to the first resurrection, are saints that have already physically died, and not also saints that have yet to physically die. If Amils disagree, and I'm sure they do, then they should be able to point out this other group somewhere in verses 4-6, saints that have yet to physically die. It can't be meaning any of these---the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Where is there this other group, saints that have yet to physically die, found in this text? I'm not seeing this other group myself.

Wrong again. You are totally misrepresenting Amils. This is what Premils do when they have no solid Scripture to rebut Amil. It is actually time to furnish us with evidence to support your claims or bow out of the thread.

 

[Zao is life]

Wrong again. You are totally misrepresenting Amils. This is what Premils do when they have no solid Scripture to rebut Amil. It is actually time to furnish us with evidence to support your claims or bow out of the thread.

Actually, he is going on the arguments Amils have brought up in support of Amil, which arguments I have seen many, many times myself in other threads, so he's not misrepresenting Amils at all. Amills can't make the very claims or bring up the very arguments DavidPT has repeated in his post, then claim, when he repeats these claims in a post, that he's "misrepresenting" Amils. It's a ludiciorous claim, given all the evidence of Amil arguments in various threads.

The evidence in support of DavidPT's view has been furnished, and is valid. And since this is his own thread which he created, I doubt that if anyone needs to bow out of this thread, that he is the one needing to bow out.

It's nice when you bring up real arguments from scripture to attempt to support the Amil view. But that's not what you are doing in the above post.

I'm not saying that judgmentally or angrily or to be nasty, it's just and objective observation. Your post was not a defense of Amil in any way, shape or form.

 

[Zao is life]

According to Scripture and simple logic, thus one does not even need to be a genius to figure this out, it's obviously after the beast ascends from the bottomless pit. Do Amils agree or disagree with that? They apparently disagree with it. Maybe not all Amils though, since there are some Amils who are hyper Partial Preterists, who might at least have the events chronologically correct, yet still be wrong since they would have the timing of these events occurring during the wrong eras of time.



Premils think one is beheaded first, then resurrected. Amils apparently think one is spiritually resurrected first, then beheaded, then resurrected again, but this time bodily, though there is not a single place in all of Revelation 20 where it even hints at anyone having part in the first resurrection also having part in a future, different resurrection. Resurrection means to live again. One only needs to do that once, not twice. When Jesus lived again, did that involve Him being resurrected twice at different times, or did that only involve Him being resurrected just one time?



Amils invent another group not found in the texts. Anyone reading Revelation 20:4 can see that the only group in view, in regards to the first resurrection, are saints that have already physically died, and not also saints that have yet to physically die. If Amils disagree, and I'm sure they do, then they should be able to point out this other group somewhere in verses 4-6, saints that have yet to physically die. It can't be meaning any of these---the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Where is there this other group, saints that have yet to physically die, found in this text? I'm not seeing this other group myself.

I've noticed before that some Amils seem to think there is another group of people mentioned in Revelation 20, aside from the saints who had been beheaded.

It's not totally unscientific. I think all scientists are used to the idea that theories give birth to other theories whenever a fact gets in the way of the first theory. A new theory is brought in to explain the anomaly.