Originally Posted by staurofilakes

I think this prophecies are too general to give them credit. You could find similarities with this phrases on everybody.

- Pastor and mariner: he loved sailing

- Flower of flowers: he had a big garden

- From the half moon: he borned,appointed or dead in a half moon night.

- Toil of the sun:....................................

- Glory of the olive: he always had bread with olive oil for breakfast.

- Peter the roman: it could mean so many things...

These are the generalities you gave. But thats not how it turned out did it.

You are basing it on personal habits which anyone could fill, that's not the case here.

Some of the descriptions were beyond human control. It's not about their personal habits thats being described as "if someone loved sailing", if it were so then anybody could fit the prophecies or make themsleves fit into them, if it were that easy then these prophecies would'nt count for much.

Originally Posted by MontyB

This is pretty much the most common argument against these prophecies, the anti-prophecy theory is that the book was written in the 1600s because this is when it surfaced and they are extremely accurate up until that point after the 1600 the prophecies become more "generic" so that it was fairly easy to make them apply to the pope of the time.
Essentially up to the 1600s it is a history book and after that its a Nostradamus style "general" statement book.

To disprove what you are saying here are some of the predictions about the earlier (pre-1600) popes. You can see they they are about the same in accuracy as the present day ones.

Celestine II (1143-1144) 1 Ex castro Tyberis (from a castle on the Tiber)
Was born in Citta di Castello, Toscany, on the shores of the Tiber

Innocent III (1198-1216) 15 Comes signatus (signed Count)
Descendant of the noble Signy, later called Segni family

Nicholas IV (1288-1292) 31 Ex eremo celsus (elevated from a hermit)
Prior to his election he was a hermit in the monastery of Pouilles

John XXII (1316-1334) 35 De sutore osseo (of the cobbler of Osseo)
Family name Ossa, son of a shoe-maker

Benedict XII (1334-1342) 37 Frigidus Abbas (cold friar)
He was a priest in the monastery of Frontfroid (coldfront)

Callistus III (1455-145 55 Bos pascens (grazing ox)
Alphonse Borgia's arms sported a golden grazing ox


Here are some of the others after the 1600's, as you can see about the same in accuracy.


Gregory XVI (1831-1846) 100 De balneis hetruriæ (bath of Etruria)
Prior to his election he was member of an order founded by Saint
Romuald, at Balneo, in Etruria, present day Toscany.

Benedict XV (1914-1922) 104 Religio depopulata (Religion laid waste)
This Pope reigned during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which store the establishment of Communism.

In fact the 20th century popes have fit the descriptions even more than even the pre-1600 popes, most in events beyond human control. If it were as simple as where he was from, then it could be said that he was elected because of where he is from. The hoax case for this is pretty weak.

(off the subject but, as far as Nostradamus is concerened--yes his statements are generalities. However only when read in conjuction to his letter to King Henry they are no longer generalties but specific information, most people don't really know this. I don't the two are mean to be read seperate, hence the generalities, but I don't really want to get into this right now.)

Originally Posted by 7.62

I'm an evangelical chrishtan and we're taught to not believe the Catoholics(no offense anyone). But this guy was right all the time! Now thats a strange coinceidence, or not a coincedince at all.

I know what you mean, I 'm not Catholic either. But when its right its right.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

Of course, it could mean that this is the end of the line for Popes under this form of Roman Cathalocism. It may be that the church is so radically changed that they give the new leader another name than "Pope". Who knows?

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If it's going to happen it's beyond my powers and it could also be that Malachy was misinterpreted or even they lost his writtings on the next few hundred years of Popes.

You maybe right since that there would be more popes, since there is a contraversy over the last pope "Peter the Roman" since some manuascripts don't included it.

However I don't know why it would be added since its adding contradicts official Catholic teachings about the whats to come. Perhaps it was withheld for that reason? I don't we'll see, like you said our powers to control.

Originally Posted by 7.62

I'm an evangelical chrishtan and we're taught to not believe the Catoholics(no offense anyone). But this guy was right all the time! Now thats a strange coinceidence, or not a coincedince at all.

I'm not sure that that it is so much about the guy being accurate as it is a matter of believers in this prophecy reinterpreting the prophecy to fit popes once they are elected. The wording of the prophecy is general enough to allow for a lot of this. The true test: If there really and truly two popes left.

That may not even prove or disprove anything. If there is more than two remaining, well there are enough antipopes that were once considered valid and cannoized popes that are questionable that you could easily shift the whole works and then work to sort out reapplying each prophecy description to pope, etc. To sum up, there's a lot of wiggle room.

Originally Posted by gladius

These are the generalities you gave. But thats not how it turned out did it.

You are basing it on personal habits which anyone could fill, that's not the case here.

Some of the descriptions were beyond human control. It's not about their personal habits thats being described as "if someone loved sailing", if it were so then anybody could fit the prophecies or make themsleves fit into them, if it were that easy then these prophecies would'nt count for much.

To disprove what you are saying here are some of the predictions about the earlier (pre-1600) popes. You can see they they are about the same in accuracy as the present day ones.

Celestine II (1143-1144) 1 Ex castro Tyberis (from a castle on the Tiber)
Was born in Citta di Castello, Toscany, on the shores of the Tiber

Innocent III (1198-1216) 15 Comes signatus (signed Count)
Descendant of the noble Signy, later called Segni family

Nicholas IV (1288-1292) 31 Ex eremo celsus (elevated from a hermit)
Prior to his election he was a hermit in the monastery of Pouilles

John XXII (1316-1334) 35 De sutore osseo (of the cobbler of Osseo)
Family name Ossa, son of a shoe-maker

Benedict XII (1334-1342) 37 Frigidus Abbas (cold friar)
He was a priest in the monastery of Frontfroid (coldfront)

Callistus III (1455-145 55 Bos pascens (grazing ox)
Alphonse Borgia's arms sported a golden grazing ox


Here are some of the others after the 1600's, as you can see about the same in accuracy.


Gregory XVI (1831-1846) 100 De balneis hetruriæ (bath of Etruria)
Prior to his election he was member of an order founded by Saint
Romuald, at Balneo, in Etruria, present day Toscany.

Benedict XV (1914-1922) 104 Religio depopulata (Religion laid waste)
This Pope reigned during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which store the establishment of Communism.

In fact the 20th century popes have fit the descriptions even more than even the pre-1600 popes, most in events beyond human control. If it were as simple as where he was from, then it could be said that he was elected because of where he is from. The hoax case for this is pretty weak.

(off the subject but, as far as Nostradamus is concerened--yes his statements are generalities. However only when read in conjuction to his letter to King Henry they are no longer generalties but specific information, most people don't really know this. I don't the two are mean to be read seperate, hence the generalities, but I don't really want to get into this right now.)

The problem remains in that you are reading a modern interpretation of the prophecy and that interpretation is probably not based of the original either (something along the lines of "Chinese whispers" only with hindsight) and not on a direct translation of the original text therefore you are basing your call off already biased data.
(hope that makes sense)

To make your argument valid you would have to translate or at least use a credible translation of the original text which is the only unbiased data.

As for the King Henry letter there is a strong argument to say that it has already been shown to be inaccurate as he didnt die on the field of battle but in a tournament joust.
(I hope I have the right Nostradamus prediction here).

The wording of the prophecy is general enough to allow for a lot of this. The true test: If there really and truly two popes left.

That may not even prove or disprove anything. If there is more than two remaining, well there are enough antipopes that were once considered valid and cannoized popes that are questionable that you could easily shift the whole works and then work to sort out reapplying each prophecy description to pope, etc. To sum up, there's a lot of wiggle room.

Exactly

Originally Posted by MontyB

The problem remains in that you are reading a modern interpretation of the prophecy and that interpretation is probably not based of the original either (something along the lines of "Chinese whispers" only with hindsight) and not on a direct translation of the original text therefore you are basing your call off already biased data.
(hope that makes sense)

To make your argument valid you would have to translate or at least use a credible translation of the original text which is the only unbiased data.

The fact I am not reading accurate translation from the original text is only according to you, correct?

Whatever text the Catholic printers published it in during the early 1900's has so far come true. So whatever words they used has come true. Besides they are only simple phrases what more needs to be translated.

This argument for the original version is really weak. Since they have come true using present script, including the latest one regardless of if what anyone says regarding original script

As for the King Henry letter there is a strong argument to say that it has already been shown to be inaccurate as he didnt die on the field of battle but in a tournament joust.
(I hope I have the right Nostradamus prediction here).

I don't know if you know what you are talking about, because it was Nostradamus who predicted king Henry's death in a joust:

The young lion will overcome the older one,
on the field of combat in single battle,
He will pierce his eyes through a golden cage,
Two wounds made one, then he dies a cruel death.

In 1559, depite having being warned against ritual combat by Luc Gauricus, King Henry proceeded to joust in a tournament celebrating his sister Marguerite's marriage to the Duke of Savoy, and his daughter Elizabeth's marriage to the King of Spain. Both King Henry and his younger jousting opponent the Comte de Montgomery had lions embossed on their shields. Because the bout ended in a draw, the king insisted on another joust, which resulted in Montgomery's lance splintering and piercing the king's visor. Multiple wounds to the face and throat caused the king to linger for ten days before dying. This prophecy was first published in 1555 — four years before the tournament and the king's death — far enough into the future to be considered prophetic, close enough in his own lifetime to receive validation and be taken seriously.

This source is from Wikipedia;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

Exactly

Wiggle room or not, the evidence for Malachy's prophecy has already proven itself. If it were the case for for only one or two prophecies, then you could make a case that people were trying for wiggle room. But when one after the other, multiple times, over and over, fits a major aspect of each popes life then the wiggle room stuff becomes insignificant. Even if there was wiggle room in each one, having to do it multiples times over the centuries is certainly astounding and beyond what nomal people can do.

I also mentioned this earlier, there is contraversy sorrounding the final prediction since its not included in other manuascripts, some doubt its authenticity, this has been known for a long time.

The fact still remains that so far the past prophecies have come true.

If there are only two popes left, that we shall see. I'm actually hoping there are more than two popes left.

Since neither of us are going to modify our opinions on this and we both are going to cling to the same arguments which means that it will go nowhere and invariably turn nasty how about we just wait and see, as thunder says we will know in 2 popes time.

Well seeing as Benedict XVI is 78 and has a history of health problems I doubt we'll be waiting long for the next one.

I myself am hoping he lives to be a hundred. They need to transfuse him Bob Hope style if need be. Lol. I'm in no hurry to see the next one.

Nevertheless the contraversy surrounding the last prophecy at least leaves some room for optomism.

While were at it, this is a little bit off subject (it may have some bearing), but;

This prophectic stuff really fascinates me. I know there are alot of kooks out there, but once in a while there is someone who is not, this guy is one of the very few who is on target.

Has anyone heard of Kim Clement.

He has predicted both the 9/11 terror attacks and the Iraq war accurately.

He did it a full five years before 9/11, this has been verified, they even interviewed him on CNN.

Here are some of his exact words (dated July 1996):

9/11
There has been a terrorist act and there will be another. For the Spirit of the Lord says, America will retaliate, but God says, even as they retaliate with natural weapons of war and they say, we will go the place of the east and we will go and we will bring them down for what they did to our people as they flew in the air, over Long Island.

Self explanatory as the terrorist act who flew over the air over Long island. Not only that but it also includes the US invasion of Afganistan (a place of the east), because of the fact.

Iraq War
...The very god of the east, the very king of the east, the very prince of the east. The one that waged a war against America. They spoke about the mother of wars. For God says, This is going to be the mother of wars as you have never seen. For the Spirit of God will rise up against the prince of the east, and He will bring him down

This would have to be non other than Saddam who waged a previous war against the US in his "Mother of all Battles". Indeed he was brought down with shock and awe.

Here is the link to the full transcript;http://www.kimclement.com/words/PERC...ist7-25-96.htm

I don't know how you can argue that this guys hasn't told the future, at least on this writting, the details are pretty specific. Gives credence to the idea that someone like Malachy could have also predicted the future.

dude....those latest latest one are vague as!


no great leap to say that the US would attack "someone to the east!"


as for attacking iraq...bound to happen

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

dude....those latest latest one are vague as!


no great leap to say that the US would attack "someone to the east!"

If you mention only mentioned the US would attack "someone to the east!" by itself, yes that is vague.

NOT if you mention it in the same sentence as someone doing a terrorist act as they flew over the air over Long Island, then attack someone in the east because of it. How vague is this now? I think you left out this part when talkin about vagueness.

as for attacking iraq...bound to happen

You have to think this was made in 1996, when Clinton was still president, who would have thought of attacking Iraq then, not only that but bringing Saddam down. The thought of taking out Saddam then, was out of the question

This is mentioned in the very same statement as the one about 9-11, which led to all this. This war against Saddam was mention AS A WHOLE, not seperate, to the one about 9-11 and was mentioned as a result coming after 9-11, not only does it mention it, but does so in proper cronology.

Maybe if it was mentioned seperately you have a strong chance for arguement.

This saying that attacking Iraq was bound to happen is especialy weak coming from someone like you who I beleive opposed the war in Iraq, so basicly you are saying it was in fact inevitable? Not to mention attacking Iraq is one thing, but to actually take Saddam out is another.

Oh yeah this same guy predicted in 1995 that Bush would be president. Do you want me to post that here too?