At the same time, where one looks at things from, will impact what they see, or think that they see.
Is one's lens sound, itself?
By what standard - by the ever at the mercy of confirmation bias that is "well, it says so; right here in this (or that) verse?"
Hopefully we both know that is fool's gold - in fact, "wood, hay, and stubble" 1 Cor. 3:12
Merely saying "well, I see things this way," in a way says nothing at all beyond what its author thinks he is saying by that.
I suspect will see eye to eye or differ, to the extent that we each seek for a bit more awareness of just where exactly we are each actually looking at a thing from, in contrast to what often turns out we were merely asserting as having been our lens.
I'm game if you are. And please, there is no winning in any of this - that battle was fought at and won - hands down - at the Cross., 1 Cor. 1:20, 23-24.
So long as He is the issue, our differences simply won't be, Eph. 5:25.
yes I agree, I took some time to re-read the different post from the o.p. back to here and some of the issues you and stp and also the others who posted discussed. I also see these issues about the tribulation as similar to some of the post I have read.
If I said anything to you or STP and it seemed offensive I did not mean it that way. We as you say might differ a little in one issue or another,but thats okay if there is an scriptural truth that might bring light to an area that has me scratching my head I am willing to listen.
The certain things that have been discussed in the thread so far is what caught my eye. By that I mean it seems that the Jerusalem that comes from Heaven is (hindered) by something at that time.
I'll be blunt for the sake of a shorter post,and risk being known as an heretic (lol) but the friction/hindering I think is in the way is "an extra Israel". By this I mean that Christian/mankind from back then and through the ages has awaited a "new Israel/Jerusalem". Since they knew this and considered themselves "Christians,on Gods side ect." they at first opportunity (1948) created another Israel in place of the Israel/Jerusalem God has in his intention.
Not that I mean this as an anti-Semitic remark,I men it as,, "a new Jerusalem/Israel that men/mankind sets up on earth and one set up by God are not the same". So if in that day when the Jerusalem of God descends from Heaven if there is another in it's place then there will be friction/hindering.
As we know there also in scripture an Kingdom that is said to come that is of satin. It is described as an "Image",it is an attempt to deceive mankind into believing that it is of God,and eventually a leader will stand in it's temple and say/confess that he is God.
So we as dispies see this event(Jerusalem coming down) as earmarked by certain events that take place at that time(1st Resurrection,rapture ect.) Prior to the formation(1948) these things did not take place,(unless we are/were "left behind").
Again the kingdom of the beast will call itself what? It would not make sense to call it by any other name than "Israel" and it's capital and temple "Jerusalem". No one would believe it was the Kingdom of Israel if it was not in the correct place,with the same name,temple,people ect....,,,
Now so then the Jew is awaiting the Messiah so to them when this one comes "in his own name",they will believe he is their long awaited Messiah and receive him as such. On the other hand the majority of the Christian's are awaiting the return of Jesus,they will see him as Jesus in his return. The Islam's await the 12 Iaam and "Isa" who is Jesus in their faith to come,and "Isa/Jesus" will come before hand to announce him similar to JTB coming and announcing the birth of Jesus.
Now in that day when the earth is of the mind that he is either the Jews Messiah,the Islam 12th/Isa,or Jesus in his return all the earth will be compelled to worship him and who ever will not will be killed(seen as their judgment). So imagine the position of mind of those who do not recognize his as the beast,that is a mother and father will see to point out both friends and family members to this one saying "if I don't show them to them then they will not be saved!" and so then will betray their own.
Many times it is found in scripture it is said "for my names sake" so "Jesus name sake". In the same we could look back and say that many did die back then and throughout history "for Jesus names sake" but would we consider those as "the tribulation" that is the subject of the op? If not and we consider the "tribulation" to be future (still withholding) then it would be reasonable to consider it to be an event that coincides with the beast as I explained.
Now maybe many of you will shake your heads and come to "straighten me all out.lol" that is if this is so then the tribulation precedes both the first ress. and the rapture(we would much rather believe we are raptured first). But if the trib. is still withholding then many of the Christians who then will not bow down to this beast will be killed for Jesus names sake.
I will check back in a few hours,tonight and see your thoughts. It might be good if we consider this across a length of time and see different scriptures concerning this matter,,,but I hope I have offended none in my post.