Imagery in Revelation, what should it be based on?

[DavidPT]

You said the first death implies the second death. I agree, the second death comes first, then the second resurrection. The lake of fire is the second death. Coming back out of the lake of fire is the second resurrection.

Death always comes before a resurrection.

No one partakes of more than one bodily resurrection. Though there is a first resurrection and a 2nd resurrection, both resurrections don't apply to the same person. A person either has part in the first resurrection or they have part in the second resurrection. IOW, these resurrections are a type of resurrection and that the first resurrection always precedes the 2nd resurrection in every single case.

The 2 types of resurrections are meaning the following.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

1) they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life

2) they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

Jesus' resurrection belongs in category 1). The two witnesses that rise in Revelation 11 before the 7th trumpet sounds, their resurrection belongs in category 1).

Those who are Christ's at His coming, their resurrection belongs in category 1).

Everyone that belongs in category 1), which also include saints from the OT era, they are all bodily resurrected before the thousand years ever end. That only leaves one type of resurrection remaining, the 2nd resurrection, they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. That is what the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 is pertaining to, the resurrection of damnation.

The 2nd death does not precede the 2nd resurrection, the resurrection of damnation. The resurrection of damnation is the 2nd death, meaning after they have been judged then sentenced, their sentence being the 2nd death. There are no more resurrections after being cast into the LOF. The 2nd death is everlasting, the first death isn't.

 

[Timtofly]

No one partakes of more than one bodily resurrection. Though there is a first resurrection and a 2nd resurrection, both resurrections don't apply to the same person. A person either has part in the first resurrection or they have part in the second resurrection. IOW, these resurrections are a type of resurrection and that the first resurrection always precedes the 2nd resurrection in every single case.

The 2 types of resurrections are meaning the following.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

1) they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life

2) they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

Jesus' resurrection belongs in category 1). The two witnesses that rise in Revelation 11 before the 7th trumpet sounds, their resurrection belongs in category 1).

Those who are Christ's at His coming, their resurrection belongs in category 1).

Everyone that belongs in category 1), which also include saints from the OT era, they are all bodily resurrected before the thousand years ever end. That only leaves one type of resurrection remaining, the 2nd resurrection, they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. That is what the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 is pertaining to, the resurrection of damnation.

The 2nd death does not precede the 2nd resurrection, the resurrection of damnation. The resurrection of damnation is the 2nd death, meaning after they have been judged then sentenced, their sentence being the 2nd death. There are no more resurrections after being cast into the LOF. The 2nd death is everlasting, the first death isn't.

I mentioned the resurrection was a type. Now it is a category? I do not see categories. I see the first resurrection, bodily, physical. The second resurrection of the spirit, out of the Lake of Fire.

 

[DavidPT]

I mentioned the resurrection was a type. Now it is a category? I do not see categories. I see the first resurrection, bodily, physical. The second resurrection of the spirit, out of the Lake of Fire.

By category I'm simply meaning the first resurrection fits in the category involving the resurrection of life, and the 2nd resurrection fits in the category involving the resurrection unto damnation. That's all I meant by that, nothing else.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I see the first resurrection, bodily, physical. The second resurrection of the spirit, out of the Lake of Fire.

Show me where it describes anyone's spirit being resurrected out of the lake of fire. I see a description of people being cast into the lake of fire, but no description of anyone being resurrected out of it.

 

[Timtofly]

By category I'm simply meaning the first resurrection fits in the category involving the resurrection of life, and the 2nd resurrection fits in the category involving the resurrection unto damnation. That's all I meant by that, nothing else.

You are correct as the fact that Jesus did not even mention a first or second resurrection, but was characterizing several events known as a resurrection. He just used the general term of resurrection. Jesus was not explaining about a physical or spiritual change. He was explaining the outcome of either life or damnation. Jesus was not speaking of a certain one time general resurrection. It cannot be interpreted as first, second, nor last.

Some try to put a resurrection into the separation of sheep and goats in Matthew 25. They try to interpret John 5:24-29 with Matthew 25. They use Paul to link the Second Coming event with a resurrection. Matthew 25 is a Second Coming event. It involves the taking out of all the nations, all those of Israel, and harvesting their souls. Not dead souls, who have already gone to their eternal destination. The Lamb is sending those physically alive to their eternal destination, because all must die.

If there is a resurrection involved, John 5 just points out, Jesus is calling souls from the grave. That happened at the Cross when many bodies came out. It happens now, each time a soul leaves this body, for the permanent one in Paradise. After the Second Coming and the church is complete, the Revelation 20:4 is not a calling. When the goats are sentenced to eternal Death, there is no more judgment given other than at the GWT, they are still cast into the Lake of Fire. The sheep, would appear to have the angel deliver that soul to the resurrection of Revelation 20:4. Not that they are resurrected and judged. They are resurrected to that eternal life. Just like the OT saints were the firstfruits taken from Abraham's bosom, these are the firstfruits directly harvested after the Second Coming. The difference is, the OT saints were in Abraham's bosom. The sheep were transported directly by an angel. There was no grave to be called from. The GWT souls will be called from sheol, Death, and the sea. Sea is not explained.

The Cross was a single one time event. Lazarus was a single one time event. Post Cross, the calling is an ongoing process. Stephen was called as he was being stoned to death. I do not see Revelation 20:4 as a resurrection where Jesus calls souls out of any where, because angels were involved. The GWT has the souls called out from various locations to be cast into the Lake of Fire. That is how I see the promise made by Jesus to call out the souls as He claimed.

 

[Timtofly]

Show me where it describes anyone's spirit being resurrected out of the lake of fire. I see a description of people being cast into the lake of fire, but no description of anyone being resurrected out of it.

There is no second resurrection. That is your claim. I was pointing out the second death has to come first. You are the one proving a second resurrection from the lake of fire.

The first death happens and then the first resurrection. Are you telling me the second death and resurrection are in the same order, or in reverse order, where they experience a resurrection and then death?

How many times can a soul die?

How many times can a body die?

How many times can a spirit die?

Is a soul resurrected?

Is a body resurrected?

Is a spirit resurrected?

If you claim all 3 die, then the soul is the first death. The body is the second death. The spirit is the third death.

If we remove the soul, and state that death only relates to the body and spirit, we remove one death.

The first death is the body, and the first resurrection is the body.

The second death is the spirit, and the second resurrection is the spirit.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, the body the first birth. A soul is not born. A spirit is not born. Neither soul nor spirit die with the body, the first death and first resurrection. The GWT is not a first nor second resurrection. If it is a resurrection will the body remain indestructible, thus never dying a second time nor in need of a second resurrection? Does the spirit die and ever need a resurrection? What does the second death even pertain to if nothing dies again? If the body dies again, that would be a second death. But you do not get to the second death via a second resurrection. You have to experience the first resurrection, and then a second death, and only then can you have a second resurrection. If the second resurrection happens then the resurrection after the Second death would be misnamed the third resurrection like you all are trying to misname the first resurrection and call it a second resurrection.

If you claim the first resurrection comes after the first death, then the second resurrection has to be after the second death. Since no one is even defining the second death, I guess it is appropriate to just make up illogical definitions and the first resurrection can now be called a second resurrection. Yet those bodies did not resurrect 2 times.

If you literally want a second in time resurrection, at least start counting at the first resurrection, cause many interpretations are going to say the GWT event is the third resurrection and even the fourth resurrection. The One in Revelation 20:4 cannot even be the first resurrection of a 1000 years if that is only a symbolic 1000. There is still literally no second resurrection. Since it is not defined, and symbolic, no sense in naming it second. John certainly did not name it, nor even mentioned it. John just said the resurrection in verse 4 was a physical, first type resurrection. John was not even implying there will be a second type of resurrection, spiritual. Why imply a second resurrection at all?

As pointed out, any resurrection to the GWT would have to be physical, thus first. Even if it is the second resurrection mentioned in the chapter. Where in the whole of scripture is there a second and first resurrection mentioned back to back in chronological order? Now you want Revelation to be chronological and linear? In the same chapter no one thinks is a future event?

The hour is coming, second coming. Is this first resurrection still in effect? Have these people been given bodies? And still alive today in those bodies. If not, why give bodies to those at a second resurrection who are going to remain dead any ways? You deny bodies to those in the first resurrection and then claim there has to be a second resurrection for what purpose? Are these the same souls not getting bodies the first time, who now get bodies the second time?

You want a first and declared second resurrection so much without even saying what a resurrection literally does or is.

Then I claim the first resurrection is not a when, it is a type, physical. The objection is: "Nope, only spiritual and two of them." Really? How does that make any sense for there to be two spiritual resurrections? You have not even declared a first physical resurrection.

 

[claninja]

No, you not seeing the thousand years as an actual period of time that began when Christ started to reign and Satan was first bound and won't end until Satan is loosed. Instead, you only associate the thousand years with the time between David and Christ which makes no sense to me at all, as I've indicated to you multiple times now. Just accept that it doesn't make sense to me, okay? You'll get over it.

1.) I associate the 1,000 years with the fulfillment of the Davidic oath (the resurrection of Christ’s fulfilled the Davidic oath according to Peter in acts chapter 2). The 1,000 years, imho, is only an allusion to the time period between David and Christ. It is because of this fulfillment of the Davidic oath through the resurrection that believers have been lifted up and seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:6) to become a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).

2.) according to the gospel and epistolic narrative, Satan is bound, cast out and making war with the saints as a result of the resurrection of Christ. Per Paul Satan was soon to be crushed, not “released”. Therefore, I apply the gospel and epistolic narrative to revelation 20.

edit: 3.) Satan’s prowling like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2), hindering the gospel to nations (1 Thessalonians 2:16-20), leading some to stray (1 Timothy 5:15), and having authority in pergamum where antipas was killed (revelation 2:13), doesn’t at all fit within the 1,000 years. Instead I would argue this fits much better after the 1,000 years where Satan gathers those against the saints but is quickly destroyed. This fits with Paul’s words in Romans that Satan was soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20).

Now, before you go on criticizing my symbolic interpretation, what do you believe the 1,000 years is symbolic for and what evidence do you have for this position?

How long have people been living and reigning with Christ? Do you believe people stopped living and reigning with Christ at some point? I don't know what your understanding is of people living and reigning with Christ for a thousand years while Satan is bound.

And who do you believe lives and reigns with Christ during that time? Did people stop living and reigning with Christ long ago? Of course not, right?

Believers have been raised up and seated in the heavens (Ephesians 2:6) and became a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9) as a result of the resurrection of Christ. There is no end to this.

Jesus Himself is the first resurrection, which is indicated in verses like Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5.

absolutely agree.

The souls John saw spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection. But, the first resurrection itself does not refer to their bodily resurrections, but to Christ's.

While I agree with your “interpretation” of the first resurrection”, Within the context Of literally reading the vision of revelation 20, the first resurrection absolutely involves those living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years. Vs 4 literally states “this is the first resurrection”. Within the context of the vision, it’s NOT the first resurrection followed by 1,000 years. Instead, the vision presents the first resurrection as equaling those living and reigning with Christ FOR 1,000 years.

Therefore, as the vision states the first resurrection occurs over the 1,000 years, when I interpret the first resurrection as Christ’s, I include the 1,000 years WITHIN Christ’s resurrection, NOT AFTER, as traditional Amil interprets.

You asked me this in relation to my claim that you have something in common in relation to your literal understanding of Satan's binding. I said that based more on what I remember you saying in the past than what you've said in this thread. What I recall you saying before was that you don't believe Satan was still bound after he was cast out of heaven and you talked about how it indicates he makes war with the saints after that and you referenced verses where it talks about him roaring as a lion seeking who he may devour and such.

So, what I meant is that you seem to understand his binding in a literal sense, as in his binding prevented him from doing anything at all, which is how premils see it. Let me know if I'm not remembering correctly. I know your understanding of his binding is different than mine, so if I'm not remembering correctly, please tell me exactly how you understand the nature of his binding. In your view, what was he bound from doing and for how long?

I don’t believe the binding is literal as in a literal chain.

Satan had the power over death (Hebrews 2:14) and the ability to accuse (revelation 12:10).

I believe Christ’s binding of Satan is related to 1.) his resurrection, which destroyed Satan’s power over death and cast him out of heaven and 2.) his fulfillment of the law which is imputed to believers, which destroyed satans ability to accuse the saints.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

1.) I associate the 1,000 years with the fulfillment of the Davidic oath (the resurrection of Christ’s fulfilled the Davidic oath according to Peter in acts chapter 2). The 1,000 years, imho, is only an allusion to the time period between David and Christ. It is because of this fulfillment of the Davidic oath through the resurrection that believers have been lifted up and seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:6) to become a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).

2.) according to the gospel and epistolic narrative, Satan is bound, cast out and making war with the saints as a result of the resurrection of Christ. Per Paul Satan was soon to be crushed, not “released”. Therefore, I apply the gospel and epistolic narrative to revelation 20.

edit: 3.) Satan’s prowling like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2), hindering the gospel to nations (1 Thessalonians 2:16-20), leading some to stray (1 Timothy 5:15), and having authority in pergamum where antipas was killed (revelation 2:13), doesn’t at all fit within the 1,000 years. Instead I would argue this fits much better after the 1,000 years where Satan gathers those against the saints but is quickly destroyed. This fits with Paul’s words in Romans that Satan was soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20).

I can't figure out what your understanding of Satan's binding is from what you're saying. When do you think he was first bound, what do you think he was bound from doing and for how long was he bound exactly?

Now, before you go on criticizing my symbolic interpretation, what do you believe the 1,000 years is symbolic for and what evidence do you have for this position?

We have already had this conversation before. Since you apparently don't even remember any of what I've said before, that doesn't give me much incentive for explaining my view to you again.

So, I'll just say that I believe the thousand years represents the New Testament era (minus Satan's little season afterwards) and passages like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Ephesians 2:11-13 and Colossians 2:14-15 speak of the impact Christ's death and resurrection had on Satan and my understanding of his binding comes from passages like those.

While I agree with your “interpretation” of the first resurrection”, Within the context Of literally reading the vision of revelation 20, the first resurrection absolutely involves those living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years. Vs 4 literally states “this is the first resurrection”. Within the context of the vision, it’s NOT the first resurrection followed by 1,000 years. Instead, the vision presents the first resurrection as equaling those living and reigning with Christ FOR 1,000 years.

Therefore, as the vision states the first resurrection occurs over the 1,000 years, when I interpret the first resurrection as Christ’s, I include the 1,000 years WITHIN Christ’s resurrection, NOT AFTER, as traditional Amil interprets.

Your view is hard for me to follow. What is your understanding of this verse:

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What do you think it means when it talks about having part in the first resurrection? Who do you believe has part in the first resurrection and when?

 

[DavidPT]

edit: 3.) Satan’s prowling like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2), hindering the gospel to nations (1 Thessalonians 2:16-20), leading some to stray (1 Timothy 5:15), and having authority in pergamum where antipas was killed (revelation 2:13), doesn’t at all fit within the 1,000 years. Instead I would argue this fits much better after the 1,000 years where Satan gathers those against the saints but is quickly destroyed. This fits with Paul’s words in Romans that Satan was soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20).

3 questions here, based on the following timeline.

A) satan is initially not in the pit, meaning before he is bound a thousand years.

B) satan is in the pit, meaning he is bound a thousand years.

C) satan is no longer in the pit, meaning he is loosed from the pit after the thousand years expire.

1) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning A), but not also B) and/or C)?

2) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning B), but not also A) and/or C)?

3) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning C), but not also A) and/or B)?

It seems to me that if the thousand years and satan's little season pertain to this age prior to Christ's bodily return, surely somewhere prior to ch 20 there should be some passages involving B) and some passages involving C). The point being, if one can convincingly provide some connections with B) and C) via passages prior to ch 20, this would indicate both the thousand years and satan's little season are meaning in this age prior to the bodily return of Christ.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Satan hasn't been bound yet, so the little season is at least 1000 years away, IMHO.

 

[claninja]

I can't figure out what your understanding of Satan's binding is from what you're saying. When do you think he was first bound, what do you think he was bound from doing and for how long was he bound exactly?

As stated in a previous post, i believe Satan was bound at the ministry, death, and resurrection. As Satan had power over death, Christ bound him by rising again (Hebrews 2:14) and taking his seat on the throne, fulfilling the Davidic oath. Additionally, Satan had the power to accuse the saints (revelation 12:10). However, Christ fulfilled the law and the righteousness of God has now been imputed on believers, resulting in no one being able to accuse any longer (Romans 8:1-5, 33-34).

I would argue that this “binding” resulted in the saints being seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:6), and becoming a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9), and the gospel being preached to every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23), and believers never facing the 2nd death (John 12:26).

I believe this also resulted in:

Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
Revelation 12:12

Satan’s prowling like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2), hindering the gospel to nations (1 Thessalonians 2:16-20), leading some to stray (1 Timothy 5:15), and having authority in pergamum where antipas was killed (revelation 2:13)

Your view is hard for me to follow. What is your understanding of this verse:

I’ll try to use an example:

“A man ran for 26.2 miles. This is a marathon”

When is the marathon fulfilled, at the beginning of the 26.2 miles or when the man has finished running the 26.2 miles?

“They lived and reigned with Christ for 1,000 years. This is the first resurrection”

So, when I read this vision/parable, I read the first resurrection as fulfilled when the 1,000 years is completed.

So, I'll just say that I believe the thousand years represents the New Testament era (minus Satan's little season afterwards) and passages like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Ephesians 2:11-13 and Colossians 2:14-15 speak of the impact Christ's death and resurrection had on Satan and my understanding of his binding comes from passages like those.

this doesn’t address the activities of Satan in the NT, that clearly do not fit within the 1,000 years. This doesn’t address that Paul believed Satan soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20), not released.

What do you think it means when it talks about having part in the first resurrection? Who do you believe has part in the first resurrection and when?

I believe “those that partake in the 1st resurrection” is a reference to Ephesians 2:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 and John 11:26

 

[claninja]

1) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning A), but not also B) and/or C)?

revelation 12:1-4

2) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning B), but not also A) and/or C)?

Not exactly. Closest seems to be when he is cast out for a “little season” in revelation 12:7-11. But that’s up for debate.

3) In the book of Revelation, meaning prior to chapter 20, are there any passages that come to mind where that would be concerning C), but not also A) and/or B)?

revelation 12:12, 17
Revelation 16:13-14.

It seems to me that if the thousand years and satan's little season pertain to this age prior to Christ's bodily return, surely somewhere prior to ch 20 there should be some passages involving B) and some passages involving C). The point being, if one can convincingly provide some connections with B) and C) via passages prior to ch 20, this would indicate both the thousand years and satan's little season are meaning in this age prior to the bodily return of Christ.

it seems that the disciples believed they were living in the last days at the end of the ages (acts 2:16-17, 1 Corinthians 10:11, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 John 2:18-19, Hebrews 9:26), that Christ’s coming was at hand (James 5:8-9), and that Satan was soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20). They were looking forward to the new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:13), not an earthly literal millennial kingdom, followed by a little season of Satan. Therefore I interpret revelation with that mind set.

 

[Timtofly]

As stated in a previous post, i believe Satan was bound at the ministry, death, and resurrection. As Satan had power over death, Christ bound him by rising again (Hebrews 2:14) and taking his seat on the throne, fulfilling the Davidic oath. Additionally, Satan had the power to accuse the saints (revelation 12:10). However, Christ fulfilled the law and the righteousness of God has now been imputed on believers, resulting in no one being able to accuse any longer (Romans 8:1-5, 33-34).

I would argue that this “binding” resulted in the saints being seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:6), and becoming a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9), and the gospel being preached to every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23), and believers never facing the 2nd death (John 12:26).

I believe this also resulted in:

Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
Revelation 12:12

Satan’s prowling like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2), hindering the gospel to nations (1 Thessalonians 2:16-20), leading some to stray (1 Timothy 5:15), and having authority in pergamum where antipas was killed (revelation 2:13)

Is there a verse that claims Satan has power over death? When did God give up the right to give life, and take life away?

I’ll try to use an example:

“A man ran for 26.2 miles. This is a marathon”

When is the marathon fulfilled, at the beginning of the 26.2 miles or when the man has finished running the 26.2 miles?

“They lived and reigned with Christ for 1,000 years. This is the first resurrection”

So, when I read this vision/parable, I read the first resurrection as fulfilled when the 1,000 years is completed.

this doesn’t address the activities of Satan in the NT, that clearly do not fit within the 1,000 years. This doesn’t address that Paul believed Satan soon to be crushed (Romans 16:20), not released.

I believe “those that partake in the 1st resurrection” is a reference to Ephesians 2:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 and John 11:26

I would agree that those resurrected live the whole time, thus never die physically. Where are these resurrected people who "ran" the whole "period", and still alive today? Matthew 27, declares bodies came out of their graves, a physical resurrection. Where are those bodies today that never died again?

 

[DavidPT]

I believe “those that partake in the 1st resurrection” is a reference to Ephesians 2:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 and John 11:26

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
-------------------------------------------

1 Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
------------------------------

John 11:17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.
18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee.
29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.
30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.
31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.
32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
------------------------------------
When comparing all of these none of the passages you provided even hint at the following, which is also something connected with the first resurrection, obviously---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.

If the first resurrection is something that takes place in this age, multiple times at that, so must the same be true of what I submitted from Revelation 20:4.

Revelation 20:4 does not say---and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

That verse says---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


It is when John is seeing thrones, as in more than one, that he is also at that time seeing the souls of martyrs. We then need to look for passages involving thrones and judgment being given to the saints at the time.

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

This is the interpretation of earlier visions in Daniel 7.

Verse 21 is pertaining to this---and, behold, there came up among them another little horn---in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things(Daniel 7:8)----And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed(Revelation 13:3)-----And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them((Revelation 13:5-7).

Verse 22 is pertaining to this---I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame(Daniel 7:9-11)---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them(Revelation 20:4)--- and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom(Daniel 7:22).

It is Revelation 20:4 that is connected with Daniel 7:9-11. Which then means there is zero connection with Daniel 7:9-11 and that of Revelation 20:11-15 like some have wrongly proposed in the past. Revelation 20:11-15 is meaning after the thousand years, Daniel 7:9-11 is not if it is connected with Revelation 20:4. instead

Maybe not to someone with a Preterist mindset would the 42 month reign of the beast be followed by the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age, but to some of the rest of it would be followed by His bodily return. That places the thousand years during the time of His bodily return not prior to it instead. Everything I just submitted above from Daniel 7 is meaning before the thousand years and during the thousand years. Before the thousand years is when the little horn wages war on the saints and overcomes them. During the thousand years, or at least at the beginning of it, that is what Daniel 7:9-11 is involving, plus it is also involving Revelation 19:20.

 

[claninja]

When comparing all of these none of the passages you provided even hint at the following, which is also something connected with the first resurrection, obviously---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.

those that partake In the first resurrection are a kingdom of priests and are not hurt by the 2nd death.

Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:6 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 20:6 - English Standard Version

The Gospels nor epistles mention anything of a literal 1,000 year reign.

However, they do mention that Christ was presently reigning from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:25), that believers have been raised up with Christ to sit in heaven (Ephesians 2:6), that believers are a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9), and that believers will never die (John 11:26).

so clearly there is a connection with what the gospels and epistles say when compared to revelation for those that partake in first resurrection.

This is the interpretation of earlier visions in Daniel 7.

according to the angel, how many kingdoms would there be until the saints inherited the kingdom?

 

[DavidPT]

according to the angel, how many kingdoms would there be until the saints inherited the kingdom?

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.


Apparently, 4 kingdoms. It seems to be during the 4th kingdom, but not at the beginning of it, but at the end of it, being when the saints inherit the kingdom.

Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Any reason why none of this(mainly verse 26 and 27) would be involving any of this---Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom?

How can--until the Ancient of came--not be involving the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age? How can a time and times and the dividing of time(Daniel 7:25), not be meaning this same 42 months the beast is allowed to continue(Revelation 13:5)? If this 42 month reign is not soon followed by the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age, what does soon follow it, then?

 

[claninja]

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.


Apparently, 4 kingdoms. It seems to be during the 4th kingdom, but not at the beginning of it, but at the end of it, being when the saints inherit the kingdom.

Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Any reason why none of this(mainly verse 26 and 27) would be involving any of this---Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom?

How can--until the Ancient of came--not be involving the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age? How can a time and times and the dividing of time(Daniel 7:25), not be meaning this same 42 months the beast is allowed to continue(Revelation 13:5)? If this 42 month reign is not soon followed by the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age, what does soon follow it, then?

Correct, the general interpretation in vs 15-18, tell us there would be 4 kingdoms, but the saints would possess the kingdom forever. The specific interpretation tells us the saints would inherit the kingdom when the little horn was judged in vs 26-27. So the little horn is obviously during the time of the 4th kingdom.

Considering the Hebrew word “ad” in vs 25 can mean “until” just as it did in vs 22, it seems to me that the just as the little horn persecuted the saints “until” the ancient of days came (vs 25), so we’re the saints given into the little horns hand “until” a time, times, and half a time.

Therefore, I believe the parousia of Christ occurs possibly around the same time and / or possibly after the time, times, and half a time.

but we are way past 4 kingdoms since Daniels time, though. So When did Jesus and the gospels state the saints would inherit the kingdom?

 

[DavidPT]

but we are way past 4 kingdoms since Daniels time, though. So When did Jesus and the gospels state the saints would inherit the kingdom?

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Here is a passage pertaining to when. I can't imagine---Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world---not involving Christ's bodily return in the end of this age first.

IMO, to have access to the kingdom, such as in a spiritual manner, and to possess the kingdom, such as in a physical manner meaning the kingdom can be seen with the naked eye, these are two totally different things. Even Daniel 7:21-22 tends to prove this point. In verse 21 they still would have access to the kingdom in some sense but not in possession of it if it is not until verse 22 they take possession. Unless one wants to argue that, in Daniel 7:21 during that period of time they didn't even have access to the kingdom in any sense.

What is in question, what does it look like to be in possession of the kingdom? One thing that can't be disputed, during the time of verse 21 they are not yet in possession of the kingdom. It's not until the Ancient of days comes that they are then in possession of the kingdom. One reason being, the little horn's dominion is taken away and that he/it is cast into the LOF. It is during that event when the saints take possession of the kingdom. It's 2021. No one has been cast into the LOF yet. That can't even happen until Christ bodily returns first.

If Daniel 7:22 involves Christ's bodily return in the end of this age, and that verse 22 is the angel interpreting Daniel 7:9-12, and that this in Daniel 7:22---and judgment was given to the saints of the most High--is meaning this in Revelation 20:4---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---where that is also involving Daniel 7:9-12, how could Premil possibly be incorrect that the thousand years are not meaning in this age, but are meaning once Christ bodily returns?

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

As to your observation about 'until' in the verse below.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Combining some of this might look like such--the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; and they shall be given into his hand for(can also be translated as for) a time and times and the dividing of time, until the Ancient of days comes, and judgment is given to the saints of the most High; and the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom.

 

[claninja]

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Here is a passage pertaining to when. I can't imagine---Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world---not involving Christ's bodily return in the end of this age first.

I agree, the kingdom is given to the saints at the parousia of Christ, as demonstrated in Matthew 25. We can also associate the giving of the kingdom to the saints at the "coming" of the vineyard owner to destroy the wicked tenants that murdered the vineyard owner's son.

Matthew 22:37-45 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejecte has become the cornerstone;dthis was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

IMO, to have access to the kingdom, such as in a spiritual manner, and to possess the kingdom, such as in a physical manner meaning the kingdom can be seen with the naked eye, these are two totally different things. Even Daniel 7:21-22 tends to prove this point. In verse 21 they still would have access to the kingdom in some sense but not in possession of it if it is not until verse 22 they take possession. Unless one wants to argue that, in Daniel 7:21 during that period of time they didn't even have access to the kingdom in any sense.

What is in question, what does it look like to be in possession of the kingdom? One thing that can't be disputed, during the time of verse 21 they are not yet in possession of the kingdom. It's not until the Ancient of days comes that they are then in possession of the kingdom. One reason being, the little horn's dominion is taken away and that he/it is cast into the LOF. It is during that event when the saints take possession of the kingdom. It's 2021. No one has been cast into the LOF yet. That can't even happen until Christ bodily returns first.

Again, while I agree that the saints possess/inherit the kingdom at the parousia of Christ, I would argue the spiritually present application of the kingdom is similar to that of Paul's words:

Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Just as we have already been seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (although not yet literally, but spiritually at present), so too have we been transferred into the kingdom of the son (a spiritual present reality, although we await that full inheritance at the resurrection).

If Daniel 7:22 involves Christ's bodily return in the end of this age, and that verse 22 is the angel interpreting Daniel 7:9-12, and that this in Daniel 7:22---and judgment was given to the saints of the most High--is meaning this in Revelation 20:4---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---where that is also involving Daniel 7:9-12, how could Premil possibly be incorrect that the thousand years are not meaning in this age, but are meaning once Christ bodily returns?

Yes, I would agree vs 22, which interprets 9-11, is in regards to the parousia of Christ.

However, I would disagree that daniel 7:22, which interprets vs 9-11, refers to revelation 20:4, and would argue that instead is more in line with revelation 20:11-13. This is because:

1.) Daniel 7:22 is traditionally understood as judgment was given [in favor] of the saints
2.) The books are opened (daniel 7:10, revelation 20:13)

As to your observation about 'until' in the verse below.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Combining some of this might look like such--the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; and they shall be given into his hand for(can also be translated as for) a time and times and the dividing of time, until the Ancient of days comes, and judgment is given to the saints of the most High; and the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom.

I would argue that the time, times, and half a time refers to the events of the great tribulation through the resurrection (Daniel 12:1-3, Matthew 24:15-31, Luke 21:20-28).

My reasoning is as follows:

IF the little horn rises during the 4th empire to persecute the saints "until" or "for" a time, times, and half a time AND the time, times, and half a time of Daniel 7:25 = Daniel 12:7, then the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 12:7 cannot refer to the entire vision, starting in Daniel 11 with Cyrus of Persia, but must start with the events of Daniel 12:1-3 (great tribulation through resurrection), which Jesus refers to in Matthew 24:15-31 and Luke 21:20-28.

Now, Christ states that the saints are persecuted prior to the events of the great tribulation leading up to the resurrection (Luke 21:16-17, Matthew 24:9). The book of Acts records plenty of persecutions of the saints. Therefore, I would argue that the little horn does not only persecute during the time, times, and half a time, but also prior, and thus "until" or "even to" is a better translation.

In other words the little horn wars against the saints "until" or "even to" the events of the great tribulation leading up to the resurrection.

 

[DavidPT]

I agree, the kingdom is given to the saints at the parousia of Christ, as demonstrated in Matthew 25. We can also associate the giving of the kingdom to the saints at the "coming" of the vineyard owner to destroy the wicked tenants that murdered the vineyard owner's son.

Matthew 22:37-45 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejecte has become the cornerstone;dthis was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

I do see your point. It's an interesting point for certain. So how is it both can be true when neither of these events are involving the same time period? The parousia of Christ is yet to happen. The coming of the vineyard owner is likely involving what happened in 70 AD. Yet, Daniel 7:22 does not give the impression that there are multiple times when the time has come that the saints possess the kingdom.

Yes, I would agree vs 22, which interprets 9-11, is in regards to the parousia of Christ.

However, I would disagree that daniel 7:22, which interprets vs 9-11, refers to revelation 20:4, and would argue that instead is more in line with revelation 20:11-13. This is because:

1.) Daniel 7:22 is traditionally understood as judgment was given [in favor] of the saints
2.) The books are opened (daniel 7:10, revelation 20:13)

I agree with 1.) since that is how I take to mean as well.

I have pointed the following out before, and maybe this is only the case in the KJV, and not other transalations as well, but if one does an exact phrase search in the KJV for the following---and judgment was given--that same phrase shows up twice, not just once.

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Apparently, you and others simply chalk that up as a coincedence, and not that someone is trying to tell us something here instead. What are the odds that the exact same phrase shows up in two different passages, where both involve giving judgment to someone, and both involve sitting on thrones, but that these passages are not involving any of the same events? Why can't books be opened when the little horn is being judged, and that judgment is being given in favor of the saints, without it having to mean the judgment pertaining to Revelation 20:11-15?

In case you hadn't noticed, the judgment pertaining to Revelation 20:11-15 doesn't even involve the little horn. He is nowhere to be seen in that context. Maybe because he is already in the LOF by that time. Plus, Revelation 20:11-15 is involving judgment and sentencing pertaining to the lost, and that they are then cast into the LOF. Where in Daniel 7:9-12 are you seeing the unsaved standing in front of God at the time, then being judged and sentenced to the LOF? Can you point that out in the text below?

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

What about verse 12? How can that not be pertaining to the events having to do with verses 9-11? How can anyone's life be prolonged for a season and time if Daniel 7:9-11 is involving Revelation 20:11-15? But, if it instead is involving the thousand years, it makes perfect sense how someone's life can be prolonged for a season and time, since the thousand years is not the end of everything but Revelation 20:11-15 is.

I would argue that the time, times, and half a time refers to the events of the great tribulation through the resurrection (Daniel 12:1-3, Matthew 24:15-31, Luke 21:20-28).

My reasoning is as follows:

IF the little horn rises during the 4th empire to persecute the saints "until" or "for" a time, times, and half a time AND the time, times, and half a time of Daniel 7:25 = Daniel 12:7, then the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 12:7 cannot refer to the entire vision, starting in Daniel 11 with Cyrus of Persia, but must start with the events of Daniel 12:1-3 (great tribulation through resurrection), which Jesus refers to in Matthew 24:15-31 and Luke 21:20-28.

Now, Christ states that the saints are persecuted prior to the events of the great tribulation leading up to the resurrection (Luke 21:16-17, Matthew 24:9). The book of Acts records plenty of persecutions of the saints. Therefore, I would argue that the little horn does not only persecute during the time, times, and half a time, but also prior, and thus "until" or "even to" is a better translation.

In other words the little horn wars against the saints "until" or "even to" the events of the great tribulation leading up to the resurrection.

I agree with your argument that "the time, times, and half a time refers to the events of the great tribulation through the resurrection (Daniel 12:1-3, Matthew 24:15-31, Luke 21:20-28)"---yet, we are not on the same page involving time frames. While I also see the time, times, and half a time referring to what you do, I don't see it beginning in the first century, though. There was certainly tribulation at the time, but it would not have involved the beast. At the time of John's visions the beast was 'is not', meaning that it was in the pit. When Stephen was martyred, for example, it would have been when the beast 'is not, meaning was in the pit at the time.