Jeremiah,
Yours are interesting questions, but I don't think the general approach you are taking reflects the positions of the parties we're talking about. If you are a reader, I highly suggest a book called "Regnum Caeloroum" by Charles Hill
http://www.amazon.com/Regnum-Caelorum-P ... rum+regnum
The author tracks chiliasm in the early church through their position on the intermediate state. It's one of the most important books I've read on the topic of early church eschatology. His basic point is that chiliasm (millennialism) was imported from Hellenistic Judaism and their view of the Hadean realm was tightly integrated with it. On the other hand, the majority of the church was not chiliast, and talked clearly about an intermediate state in heaven. There were certainly scriptures that each side used for their position, but I thought it was revealing that it's clear an intermediate state in heaven was the standard for most of the early church (and is now essentially universally accepted).
The one thing I wish he'd engaged is whether or not the fact that both sides had good evidence was an indication that there was some sort of transition between two legitimate positions. For instance, I suspect that the Hadean approach was valid until Christ, but after he "set the captives free" the intermediate state in heaven has been the paradigm since. This is a strong indirect argument against chiliasm without having to deny the reality of Hadean passages. This position becomes even easier to propose if Gehenna and Hades were used differently per the 70AD Gehenna interpretation.
Hill stipulated that everyone was still looking for a resurrection, but it is obvious as the survey continued that the non-chiliasts weren't as clear about the nature of it. The chiliasts were very clear about the "flesh and bone" body (they avoided the phrase "flesh and blood" because Paul explicitly said that flesh and blood weren't going to be part of the resurrection body) because without it there would be no way to experience the millennial kingdom of banquets and such on earth. On the other hand, Hill points out a very interesting concession by Irenaeus in which he stipulates that there were a number of orthodox Christians at the time who were teaching an invisible, heavenly resurrection. Irenaeus goes on to criticize Gnostics who said something similar, but caveated his criticism by saying that he wasn't trying to say that the Christians who believed in an invisible resurrection were unorthodox.
In the end, I suppose our disagreement might come down to our definitions of the Millennium and the New Heaven and New Earth. If you follow a chiliast approach coupled with the complete dissolution and repair of the physical creation then a physical body resurrection from Hades makes sense. I don't think that any of the elements of that formula are scriptural.
Doug
Fair enough man.