Yes, winslow - the entire pre-trib nonsense dates to the 1800s.
The pre-trib proponents will draw out Montanis and Ireneus but they didn’t hold to the Pre-trib Darby fallacy that the first stage, the rapture of only the believers, with two future comings of the Christ.
Pre-Trib necessitates a split covenant — as was exemplified in a pre-Trib J Dwight Pentecost who wrote “There are two new covenants presented in the New Testament: the first with Israel in reaffirmation of the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 and the second made with the church in this age. This would divide the references to the new covenant in the New Testament into two groups”
As Clarence Lakin wrote “the Sermon on the Mount has no application tot he christian, but only to those who are under the Law”
The pre-Trib idea fails especially when you consider the desperation in which it clings to pushing the dates — “oh, 40 years after the foundation of Israel - 1988 it will all end”, then “oh, until all of the folks living in 1948 are dead.
“the entire pre-trib nonsense dates to the 1800s.”
I disagree. It dates back to the Apostles and is found in scripture.
Even if we grant your argument about the date, the age of a doctrine means little and is only true if it derives from scripture.
Believing in a pre-trib rapture is not necessary for salvation. Only believing faith in Christ is necessary.