But you will never get the poster to acknowledge that there are Church Age saints who are not Tribulation Saints, nor will you get the poster to acknowledge that he has made an error due to incorrect assignation of Matthew and Mark ... the Luke 21 Discourse was spoken in the Temple followed by the Olivet explanation.
I chose to not discuss these issues with him/her further because there is an ego problem hindering reasonable discussion.
This is a speculation: perhaps by the time Irenaeus wrote his commentaries the lack of the Rapture cited as imminent in the Bible left CFs wanting to explain why, thus they gradually greyed the Rapture imminency into an amalgam of the Day of The Lord and the deliverance from the wrath to come, as assured by Paul in the Thessalonian letters. ... Imminent need not mean soon or right away. Maranatha coined by the early believers indicates they were anticipating the Raptrure and the wrath to those not Raptured to happen in their immediate lives. When it had not happened by Irenaeus's day, and folks were dying and being persecuted by men, the believers were confused. Add to that confusion that false letters and teaching was coming in at the start and you have a situation which the leadership felt needed to be dealt with and they dealt with it by various errors, such as conflating The Day of The Lord with the Ekklesia delivery from wrath, or presuming the events prophesied in Matthew and Mark were fulfilled in AD 70. There are teaches even today trying to float that one, relying on dating The Revelation to AD67 or there abouts.
Except that, as I showed from Irenaeus's writings a few posts back, when he discusses Daniel, Irenaeus makes explicit reference to the Church!:
1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.”4676 It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.
The ink hadn't dried on my comment that you read Irenaeus through the glasses of your presuppositions when you turn around and commit the same error.
But you will never get the poster to acknowledge that there are Church Age saints who are not Tribulation Saints,
Why would I deny that? There have been, are presently, and will be church-age saints who are not tribulation saints for the simple fact they will have died before the Tribulation. Though it's also true that there will be (earthly) saints in the Tribulation era because the church will still be present on earth then. You should read the Church Fathers. Those speaking to the point uniformly affirm this.
nor will you get the poster to acknowledge that he has made an error due to incorrect assignation of Matthew and Mark ...
The error here is your failure to note that I haven't even discussed Matthew or Mark on this topic.
I chose to not discuss these issues with him/her further because there is an ego problem hindering reasonable discussion.
Translation: "He's killing my argument at every turn, so the best I can do is kibbitz about him to other posters."