Is this the “mark” of the beast?

And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Revelation 13: 16-17

China’s dystopian “social credit” system

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a-model-citizen-in-a-digital-dictatorship/10200278

CCTV observation everywhere all the time
Facial recognition monitoring
Smartphones tracked
Shopping patterns tracked and scored
Partner choice scoring
Poor Social Credit scores resulting in penalities and restrictions
Social media monitored and shut down

Do read the article, it’s quite frightening no matter what your religious or non-religious perspective.

Originally posted by @divegeester
And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Revelation 13: 16-17

China’s dystopian “social credit” system

http://www.abc.net.au/ ...[text shortened]... the article, it’s quite frightening no matter what your religious or non-religious perspective.

Was John the Baptist Jesus?

No, it's not the mark itself, but it is a harbinger. The mark is, well, a mark, on their right hand or forehead, as the text states. One doesn't mistake a sign saying "Pittsburgh - 40 miles" for a sign saying "Pittsburgh City Limits".

What we're seeing is governments around the world making the mark possible.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Was John the Baptist Jesus?

No, it's not the mark itself, but it is a harbinger. The mark is, well, a mark, on their right hand or forehead, as the text states. One doesn't mistake a sign saying "Pittsburgh - 40 miles" for a sign saying "Pittsburgh City Limits".

What we're seeing is governments around the world making the mark possible.

The “mark” is literal then in your opinion. What about the “beast” and the “second beast”, are they literal beasts also as the text states?

Originally posted by @divegeester
The “mark” is literal then in your opinion. What about the “beast” and the “second beast”, are they literal beasts also as the text states?

Yes, I believe the mark is literal. It will be visible, perhaps scannable, so that scripture might be fulfilled about not being able to buy or sell without it.

The beast, as well as the false prophet (which, I assume, is what you mean by the second beast), are humans. There have been people called the Beast, mostly in sports, but were they literal beasts? No.

"This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666." - Revelation 13:18, NIV

"the number of the beast... is the number of a man." It sure seems this is plainly stating that the beast is a man.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Yes, I believe the mark is literal. It will be visible, perhaps scannable, so that scripture might be fulfilled about not being able to buy or sell without it.

Barcodes on the hand. Don’t you feel this type of interpretation is a bit 1980s pulpit speak? What about smartphones (in the hand like Apple Pay) and retinal scanning for example?

Furthermore the personification of the beast makes it difficult to apply globally and perhaps the “man” is actually a woman, or does that not resonate well with the feminist choir these days?

Lol. Evil hath been amongst you for a long time now. You cant work it out by looking ahead.You have to dissasemble what has come before.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Barcodes on the hand. Don’t you feel this type of interpretation is a bit 1980s pulpit speak? What about smartphones (in the hand like Apple Pay) and retinal scanning for example?

Furthermore the personification of the beast makes it difficult to apply globally and perhaps the “man” is actually a woman, or does that not resonate well with the feminist choir these days?

Come on, all this is simple naysaying.

Originally posted by @suzianne
"the number of the beast... is the number of a man." It sure seems this is plainly stating that the beast is a man.

Well Genesis states that man was formed from the dust of the earth and woman was taken out of man, but you completely reject those scriptures.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Come on, all this is simple naysaying.

I’m questioning why you believe what you do as part of the discussion.

That’s not “naysaying”.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well Genesis states that man was formed from the dust of the earth and woman was taken out of man, but you completely reject those scriptures.

The first chapter of a book might be considered introductory. The Torah, especially, was written for jews of c. 3500 years ago, and so it is written taking their understanding into account. Indeed, it was written by one of them. Revelation was written some 1600 years later and is an account of what one man was shown, sans explanation. Since these things are still in the future, we are better equipped now to provide explanation than anyone previous.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I’m questioning why you believe what you do as part of the discussion.

That’s not “naysaying”.

I told you what I believe. You say you disagree.

So you are naysaying what I said. Seems obvious.

Originally posted by @suzianne
I told you what I believe. You say you disagree.

So you are naysaying what I said. Seems obvious.

"Seems obvious" . Things aren't always what they seem. lol.

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
"Seems obvious" . Things aren't always what they seem. lol.

Unfortunately, you are, now hush.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Unfortunately, you are, now hush.

Please tell me to hush again. Go on. See if it works this time..... LMFAO so f****ng hard!!!!

Originally posted by @suzianne
Unfortunately, you are, now hush.

I'm obvious? Obhviously what?