Concerning
Manuel Lacunza, I looked at many sites, some pro, some con, some with just secular history.
Born into an influential family; opted for the religious life; joined the Jesuit order. When the spanish monarch, Carlos III expelled the Jesuits from Spain and its colonies, Lacunza and his fellow Jesuits were arrested and taken to Europe. That was in 1768.
While in exile, he wrote his book, "The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty."
There are several suggestions, and that’s all they are, as to why he wrote his book. Some suggest he did so out of psychological frustration in his exile and the later suspension of his religious order.
Others interpret his writing as a conservative Christian reaction to the Enlightenment, esp. to Deism, which was the practice, or style, among both Catholic and Protestant.
Still others saw his work as a result of his intense personal study of the Bible, particularly the books of Daniel and Revelation, independent from church theologians of the time.
He himself gave 3 reasons as to why he wrote his book. 1) To prompt priests to read their Bibles ‘shake the dust from’ them. 2) to call the attention of those who were running toward the ‘abyss of incredulity for lack of knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 3) to help the Jews by providing them with a ‘full knowledge of their Messiah.
His method: Study the Bible, reflect on what is read, and prayer. Even critics acknowledged his deep spirituality and genuine prayer life.
His book is written in 3 sections. Where he argues for a literal interpretation.
He wrote "Jesus Christ will return from Heaven to earth when His time comes, at the appropriate time and moment that the Father Himself has placed under His own power. He will come accompanied not only by the angels, but also by the saints previously resurrected--of those, I say, that will be judged worthy of that time and of the resurrection of the dead. . . . He will not come in a hurry, but more deliberately than is usually thought. He will not only come to judge the dead but also and in the first place the living. Consequently, this judgment of the living and the dead cannot be only one judgment, but rather two very diverse judgments, not only in essence and in manner but also in time. From this we conclude (and this is the main point that deserves attention) that there has to be considerable space of time between the awaited coming of the Lord, and the judgment of the dead or universal resurrection.â€
The second section is devoted to an examination and interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7, and the antichrist.
The third section, he elaborated on the second coming, the judgment, the new heavens and the new earth, the new Jerusalem, the millennium, the final judgment, and the eternal happiness of the redeemed.
His work received an immediate impact. While he was still writing it, partial versions were circulated in manuscript form, causing him great distress when others misinterpreted it.
Some applauded him while others denounced the content and the methodology of the work.
Critics focused on five areas:
1) rejection of the church fathers as the primary source of Biblical interpretation.
2) Acceptance of a literal interpretation of the bible as opposed to the traditional allegorical method.
3) His identification of the antichrist as a moral body.
4) His indirect criticism of the Roman hierarchy by connecting it to the second beast of Revelations 13 and the (if I type this word in, it’ll show as *****) w______. Of chapter 17
5) The projected role of the Jewish people in eschatology.
He taught an earthly millennium, separated by two resurrections – one for the righteous, the other for the wicked. This teaching aroused controversy as the Catholic church had abandoned the doctrine from the third century onward.
Source of info Juan Buenaventura Bestard, quoted by Mario Gongora "La Obra de Lacunza en la Lucha Contra el EspÃritu del Siglo en Europa, 1771-1830," Historia [Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile], 15 (1980), p. 47.
The official Roman Catholic reaction came in 1819, eight years after the first Spanish edition was printed in 1811. January 15, the Tribunal of the Sacred Office in Madrid ordered the work to be taken out of circulation.
Later, in September 1824, Lacunza's work was included by Pope Leo XII in the index of forbidden books.
Edward IrvingAs has already been pointed out, he was a popular Presbyterian minister in London, England. In 1827, he purchased an English version of Lacunza’s book under the title The Coming of the Messiah.
He pointed out how he differed from Lacunza in some areas. Irving interpreted one day in prophecy as one year. He rejected the futurist interpretation of Revelation and held that the Antichrist was an individual.
He was also interested, not only in end time events, but the manifestations of the Holy Spirit as practiced in the Book of Acts. He went as far as encouraging his congregation to seek these manifestations, and when some actually began to practice them, he encouraged them to take it outside lest it disrupt the service.
In 1830, he published his doctrines regarding the humanity of Jesus Christ and was found guilty on four charges of heresy by the London Presbytery and declared to be no longer a member.
In October, 1831, one member, a Mary Campbell, during one of the services, spoke ecstatically in tongues. He stopped fighting the manifestations after that and allowed it to be practiced in the Sunday worship service. This got him thrown out
April 26, 1832, the London Presbytery found him guilty of deviations from the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Scotland.
He, and about 800 people, met for communion in a hall, and months later moved to Newman Street to organize what became known as ‘The Catholic Apostolic Church.’
March 13, 1833, he was found guilty of maintaining the sinfulness of the Savior in His human nature and was removed from the ministry of the Church of Scotland by the Presbytery of Annan on the charge of heresy.
After doing research and looking at many sources of online information, I come to the conclusion there is not enough evidence to give these people credit for coming up with the pre-tribulation rapture as taught by Ellis Skolfield.
Anyone can take any information anyone writes and use it for perversion or distortion of the truth.
I still hold to a pre-tribulation rapture as described in the Bible, the only source for truth, His truth, not anyone else’s version of it. There are, and have been people who take what the Bible says and twist it to say what they want it to say, such as no pre-trib rapture when the Bible is very plain.
I see no reason for me to continue in doing research on the other people mentioned.
I’m going in the rapture! Got to go now! It could be any time.
See you 7 years later! 
(Edited August 15, 2006 = I decided to go ahead and do the research, mostly because there seems to be an increase in those who no longer believe in a rapture (pre, mid, or post), and those who who were once pre have changed their views. I understand why this happens.
I've also noticed these are so adament in their protest, their arguing, sometimes vicious, against those who choose to believe in pre-trib.
Yet, they will claim they love others, pray for them etc. while at the same time calling them names. They make comments about those who left the forum, pre-tribbers, claiming we are are immature. Who is immature?
I also understand where this comes from.
Many love and accept only those who meet their expectations, their standards of belief. All others are not welcome into their little clicks.
There are well over 200 registered on this forum, most of which have never posted or have posted far below 50 post. Wonder why they never posted or no longer post?
Here it is months later, and I am still convinced, and my belief is even stronger, there is a pre-trib rapture, the hope of those who are His. Each day draws us closer to that blessed event.
When it does, many of you will be surprised. If you happen to be one who is truly a Christian, I'll be waving at you as together we rise in the air to meet our Lord.
I have looked at all views and verses used. I've looked at numerous sources.
Scripture backs pre-trib whether one accepts it as truth or not. Paul wrote about it.
The early church taught it. Clement in the first century and on the list goes. As I pointed out, even in the 4th century. Again all through the church history, there have been those who held to a pre-trib rapture. Even in the 1600's and the 1700's.
I'm sure you'll ask why I don't post it all. So all can be mocked as it has been before? No thanks! Just google; do your homework as I did.)
