This question was a journey for me, as no matter what it's definitely close to the boundaries of scope for the site. It doesn't get much more 'meta' than this, when we're debating the authorial intent of Questions rather than passages!
Why I reached the conclusion to keep it Open at the time
At least ten of us in the community engaged with the question, it has 354 views, and yet not a single person voted to Close it - only curiousdannii flagged it as potentially off-topic as 'theological synthesis'. As Moderators we do try to be careful about not single-handedly closing questions unnecessarily, and so that is a key influence in the what happened here. Perhaps as site users one or both of us may have issued Close votes and let the rest of the community weigh in... but unfortunately as moderators our votes are binding, and so there was no way for either of us to cast a non-binding vote to see what others would do - perhaps we need to raise a [feature request] for that...
To me, my conclusion was that this was an exegetical question that's inescapably anchored on a theological topic. We avoid these where we can, but sometimes we just can't get away from the fact that Biblical texts often speak about theological events! As with many questions on Revelation or Daniel, lots of texts hang on theological concepts - which isn't to say they can't be answered exegetically, but rather that there are inescapable theological components that end up getting drawn in, implicitly or otherwise.
Why I would keep it Open now
The question does make a lot of good points which are hermeneutical in nature - the OP has two texts which share lots of common features, and so they've asked whether this is accurate. It's a fair textual question about the intersection between two texts - even if the inevitable result of such an intersection enters the domain of systematic theology.
I don't entirely agree that all Questions are irredeemable by their answers. Yes, in the vast majority of cases this is true, but for an edge case such as this it's not unreasonable to let Answers have their due influence. In the past when some questions have been posed and stacks of waffly theological answers came back, I'd take that as a litmus test of "this is obviously not a textual question".
However, in this case we've got a question about two texts, with some excellent answers which apply the core hermeneutic toolset to these texts to explore their intersectionality. And to me, that's great to see.
Site Scope vs. Theology
I'm a programmer at heart, a bit of a logical purist, and can honestly get a bit pedantic about rule-keeping. However, I've also made my peace with the fact that this is a community site, and most of the community here on BH.SE really do have theological questions and issues they wish to explore somehow. The site scope isn't here to prevent anybody from using the Bible to engage in theology (heaven forbid), but rather to encourage the correct application of hermeneutic principles and exegetical techniques - before taking other legitimate steps that belong outside of the site scope (such as building systematic theology or application).
We regularly encounter the same phenomenon with applications of texts - users are actively discouraged from seeking out contemporary application. However, in practice most end up just writing Questions about the texts they're seeking to apply, with the hope that the exegesis is helpful for them. And it's left to the Answerers whether they wish to extend their analysis onward to application. But we'd never shut a Question down with the claim that it's a well-masked application question... "Hey, this isn't a purely exegetical question - you're just looking to apply this!"
I arrived at the personal view that this question is ultimately legitimate use of the site - it's an exegetical question that the user may or may not be seeking to use to explore a theological topic. The site content it generated was actually of high quality exegetically, it solicited high engagement from the community, and didn't generate a single Close vote.
But again, that's my own personal view, and so I'd hold it lightly and balance it against that of the community and the other moderators.