Do you have any understanding of what I'm asking about? Have you actually read what I've said? What you quoted is in relation to what happens AFTER the tribulation, not before (Matt 24:29-31). My question is in relation to signs occurring before a supposed pre-trib rapture, not signs related to His coming AFTER the tribulation.
No it does not. That is why you are wrong.
There is no drawn out GT that should be years but shortened prior to the Second Coming. That would be a dead give away that the Second Coming could happen. That would totally remove the thief in the night moment.
Jesus as King is on the earth at the 6th Seal, prior to the 7th Seal. The 7th Seal is prior to the first Trumpet.
You claim Revelation is not chronological to fit Matthew 24. I say Matthew 24 is in the reverse order to allow the chronological order of Revelation to remain as written. One book is not in the order as written, and that book is not Revelation.
In verse 14 of Matthew 24, Matthew declares an end.
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and
then shall the end come."
That covers everything up until the 7th Trumpet stops sounding.
Then Jesus works back from the end until the first sign. John states that 42 months leads up to Armageddon. The AoD is set up towards the beginning of that period in Revelation 13. So the AoD in Matthew is the last 42 months prior to the end.
The next event is the time of Jacob's trouble. John writes about this time in the first 6 Trumpets and the unwritten 7 Thunders. We see this in Revelation as written before the 42 months of the AoD.
The Second Coming is not after Jacob's trouble, but after those days of tribulation the church has gone though as mentioned in verses 4 to 14. The tribulation of the church is over because the church is no longer on the earth. "Those days" can be referring to verses 4 to 14 just as easily as to verses 21 to 28.
Before the Second Coming is the parable of the fig tree. That is certainly not an event after the AoD, after Jacob's trouble, and after the Second Coming.
You can change up Revelation all you want to try to fit Matthew's version of this time period. All I have to do is point out that Matthew was addressed to the Hebrews who would understand the arrival of an end point, and then working one's way back to a starting point, which is the parable of the fig tree.
The point is clear that the generation of the fig tree lives through all the events. If the parable is the last event, then that generation would be after all those events. You don't experience time backwards. You cannot be that generation and then go back and experience past events that already happened. The fact that the Second Coming is a thief in the night moment means it cannot be the last event after the AoD and the GT, even if that is what people claim about Revelation 19. Jesus declared it is not when you think it is. Obviously Jesus already knew what all would be written. Jesus is the Word. Jesus also knew that people would think Revelation 19 is the Second Coming.
You are only a post trib, by how you interpret Matthew 24. Revelation does not refer to a tribulation at all. Revelation does not even state an AoD nor an antichrist prior to a Second Coming. John does not declare Revelation 19 as a Second Coming. That is a human interpretation. John does not declare the 6th Seal is the Second Coming either. Yet he uses almost the same words Jesus and Peter used as the accepted point of the Second Coming. Neither Jesus nor John calls the Second Coming a thief in the night, but Peter does.
BTW, I think Mark is Peter's account as written by the scribe Mark. When it was scribed is not given. Peter was able to go into greater detail later in life, even able to write without a scribe. I don't expect any to agree with me on that point. Mark is still accepted as the first Gospel to be circulated. Peter was the one told to feed the sheep. Sounds like sending out copies of Mark would describe that task. John did not include the Olivet Discourse. He would be a witness to the events and write his version first hand. His OD is the book of Revelation.
Luke was the historical account relating more to 70AD, than to the actual Second Coming. I understand what you are writing. Obviously you don't think you are wrong. I am pointing out where you are wrong, so obviously you will either call my post nonsense or my own opinion, or that I don't understand what you write. You would still be wrong on all points.