Your entire point is demonstrative of fundementaly unsound doctrine premised upon exremely sloppy hermeneutic. I'm not going to write a novel to rebut you since it's already been done. Read Paul Thigpen's The Rapture Trap, for instance. There are many other books rebutting your understanding of "rapture" Scriptures precisely because no one believed this crap prior to about two centuries ago.
If you care to refute THAT statement, all you have to do is find a Christian in the first millenium of Christianity who bought into it.
There aren't any. And there are precious few in the second millenium - none prior to the 1800's.
I see your Thigpen, and I raise you a J. Dwight Pentecost, Walvoord, Ryrie, A.T. Robertson, Thiessen, Chafer, Hunt, McDowell, McCarthy, Packer and many many others. Its not an issue of how many commentaries there are (or what the commentaries say). Commentaries are not infallible, nor are they inspired Word of God, but is what the commentaries say actually hermeneutically sound. John J. Stubbs wrote in the introduction to a compilation of papers he wrote concerning commonly misinterpreted texts, that his series of papers were not apologetics respecting texts misused by the unsaved, or that they addressed so called difficult texts, but instead dealt with those texts that are commonly misunderstood and misapplied by Christians. Those endeavoring to study such texts have already a great love for the word of God, and desire not only to quote it correctly, but also to give to Scripture the sense that the Holy Spirit intended.
To whit I am familiar with all the differing eschatological arguments and even differing dispensational systems, however, I'll go toe to toe categorically with any argument and anyone who wants to refute pre-trib pre-mill rapture, post-trib pre-mill second advent of Christ. I'll show why any other hermeneutic is wrong and how its inconsistent and essentially unsound doctrine.
As far as refuting what you asked me to, see my response to Rockingham above. Its a straw man argument and needs no further refuting.