Most of those assertions are either unsupported or else the alleged difference can be easily reconciled.
Full disclosure: I was dispensational and as pre-trib as they come years ago, but found that I could not confirm the doctrine from Scripture, and have moved to more of a "pre-wrath" position, albeit without dogmatism regarding speculations, because I know good, well-meaning people can see these things very differently.
As for the alleged differences, some of them are imposing rigid conditions, as if Christ coming in the air, and we who believe meeting Him in the air, excludes the possibility that we will then proceed with Him to the earth, albeit perhaps going to some different location. There is no passage saying "He comes thus far, and stops in mid-air, or goes back etc." Where is that? It is not written that way anywhere.
Other alleged differences are simply unsupported. Where is the passage that says only believers will see Christ in His first coming? When Jesus was talking to His disciples in Matthew 24, they were believers, and He was giving them directions on what to look for, what to not pay attention to, etc. And it is there that believers are advised to avoid falling for false Christs (of which there have already been many), precisely because Jesus wanted them to know every eye will see Him, that His return will not be secret. He is giving this as a precaution to believers, not unbelievers, or people converted during the tribulation. This was doctrine for the ecclesia He was building through these disciples.
Finally, whether any prophecy must be fulfilled prior to the Second Coming versus the Rapture is a problem in circular reasoning. If one assumes from the outset that there are two such events, then it would be easy to filter all the prophecy-connected passages as being only about the Second Coming, and all the other Parousia-related passages as being about the Rapture. But as I said, this is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion in the question. If there are some passages which do not directly discuss a signaling prophecy, that does not logically mean they are not talking about the same event. In fact, the default assumption has to be that they are talking about the same event unless the author provides an intentional and unambiguous distinction.
As for the specific question of 2 Thessalonians, there is no requirement of the text that the removal of the obstacle to the appearance of the man of sin would be a removal of the Holy Spirit from from the earth as the indweller of believers. That is an artificial construction imposed on the text without due justification. It is speculative who or what the obstacle is. Remember Daniel in his prayers? When the angel arrived 21 days later, we are told the Prince of Persia was the obstacle. We must assume that in the case of the man of sin, the obstacle is there by divine appointment, and will be removed when God's timing is just right. But we do not have any definite basis for speculating beyond what is written.
As for apostasia as being a catching away and not a falling away, again, there is no basis for assuming anything other than the ordinary use of apostasia as a noun to describe a revolt from the faithful teaching of the Gospel. Apostasia was a theological term of art, as they say in the law, such that when used as a noun rather than a verb was reliably about defection from some system or standard. The verbal form could be used to discuss physical departure, but that was a distinct condition from the use of the noun, which normally referred to a rebellious state of mind.
For example, the same word is used here, also as a noun:
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
(Acts 21:21)
Granted, the KJV rendered it as a verb, but in the Greek, it literally says " ... that you teach rebellion [apostasian] from Moses ..." and so is very much a noun.
So it is crystal clear in 2 Thessalonians that Paul is discussing an event he had mentioned to them previously, and that it was an apostasy as both we and they would normally use that term. Which also makes sense in the context, as the revealing of the man of sin must logically be accompanied by such a corruption of belief and culture as to permit the rise of such a fiend.
Bottom line, one can find true and false doctrine taught at all stages of the history of Christianity. Finding a few weak references to it here and there proves nothing. Unwarranted prophetic speculation has typically led to confusion. This issue in my mind is rather simple. Maybe because I'm just simple minded. :) The thing Jesus gave as the main deliverable in response to the prophecies concerning the Second Coming/Parousia/Rapture/Etc. was to be ready. Not to figure it out in excruciating detail. But to be found on that day abiding in Him. That's the main thing. Trust Christ. Take a pass on the false christs. Don't beat the servants while the Master is away. Keep those lamps trimmed and full of oil. Keep looking for that day, as children of light. It will come, and soon enough.
Peace,
SR
"
He is giving this (Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but not Luke 21)
as a precaution to believers, not unbelievers, or people converted during the tribulation. This was doctrine for the ecclesia He was building through these disciples." Um, I don't think that is correct: if you read the scene in Luke 21, where the Temple Discourse occurs, then follow Jesus and the four who attended the OLivet Discourse, you will see that Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse to answer the specific question they asked regarding the actual end times. They had pointed out the magnificence of the Temple in the setting sun, which Jesus had just told folks during the Temple Discourse would not remain even one stone upon another!
Yes, Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse TO believers, but it was not an ekklesia building discourse, it was to answer the insistence as to what shall be the SIGNS of the arrival of the end of the age. The end of the Age of the ekklesia is the end of the building of the ekklesia, and the advent of Daniel's seventieth week where God brings to an end His dealing with the Jews as evangelizing the world and the end to sin. (see Daniel 9)
It is cogently speculated that believers who heard the Luke 21 Discourse regarding the fate of Jerusalem were able to escape the Roman razing of the city and killing more than a million because they took Jesus's teaching on the signs of the impending destruction of the Temple as warning to get out when the Roman armies encamped around Jerusalem for nine months while Vespasian returned to Rome to settle the emperor question upon the sudden death of Nero.
The Olivet Discourse was focused upon something many centuries after the destruction of the Temple. The Tribulation has events taking place in a restored Temple, spoken of by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. There are many many signs of the end of the age events and His return from Heaven with the armies of Heaven, after the events see in Heaven by John, involving The Church, the ekklesia.
Keeping the Olivet Discourse as a separate teaching from the Luke 21 Discourse which took place during the day in the Temple, prior to the Olivet Discourse, is a vital part of understanding the different periods to which Jesus referred in the two different discourses. The Olivet Discourse was most definitely not aimed at building the ekklesia since it primarily dealt with the end of the Age, the Church Age, and the Tribulation to follow.