Nostradamus: Prophet, Seer, or Fake?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

It is widely known that Nostradamus wrote 942 quatrains.

According to some, these quatrains are said to predict events that take place throughout history up to the present day.

These quatrains also are also said to predict the end of the world as we know it.

These quatrains have been the issue of debate as long as I can remember.

(I'm only in my 30's though)

Here is a execerpt of a few of his quatrains translated into english:

Century 1, Quatrain 24

The new city contemplating a condemnation,
The bird of prey offers itself to the heavens.
After victory pardon to the captives,
Cremona and Mantua will have suffered great evils.

Century 1, Quatrain 87
Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth.
Will cause the towers around the New City to shake,
Two great rocks for a long time will make war,
And then Arethusa will color a new river red.

Century 6, Quatrain 97
At forty-five degrees, the sky will burn,
Fire approaches the great new city,
Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up
When they want to have verification from the Normans.

Century 9, Quatrain 92
The king will want to enter the new city,
Through its enemies they will come to subdue it
Captives liberated to speak and act falsely,
King to be outside, he will keep far from the enemy.

Century 10, Quatrain 49
Garden of the world near the new city,
In the path of the hollow mountains,
It will be seized and plunged into the Vat,
Drinking by force the waters poisoned by sulfur.

Some say that these quatrains are supposed predict current events and on into the future. One quatrain in particular is supposed to have predicted the 9/11 tragedy. It reads as follows:

Century 10, Quatrain 72
The year 1999, seventh month,
From the sky will come a great King of Terror:
To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols,
Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.

One can debate these quatrains for years and not agree on thier meaning.

The question here is if at least one of his quatrains is percise in predicting any historical event, does that make him a prophet?

Also if not a prophet, then could he be calssified as a seer of some sort,
or could it be deemed as pure luck?

Any thoughts?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Yo-eleven!

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

One can debate these quatrains for years and not agree on thier meaning.

Hoo-boy! You got that right.

The question here is if at least one of his quatrains is percise in predicting any historical event, does that make him a prophet?

Also if not a prophet, then could he be calssified as a seer of some sort,
or could it be deemed as pure luck?

OK, in my limited understanding, I seem to recall somewhere buried deep in the Old Testament that if a prophet had *any* wrong predictions, he was not to be considered a prophet of G-d. (and was to be stoned to death)

With Nostradamus, this becomes problematic in that, the guy is already long dead. He did, however, have a number of predictions that seem to be remarkably accurate, such as one I vaguely recall about a king who was injured in a joust, who died a horribly painful death a few days later. I seem to recall another that mentioned "pig faced men," which in context sounded remarkably like a jet fighter pilot. I like Nostradamus, but my jury is out on calling him a prophet in the Biblical sense. Of course, this thinking could conceivably raise doubts on Biblical prophets like Isaiah and John, but they have enough going for them that I don't seriously entertain that problem.

Another interesting character is Edgar Cayce. I can't put a finger on why, but I don't care as much for his work as for Nostradamus. Even so, my opinions notwithstanding, the guy has some interesting stuff to consider. I'm not sure I would call him a prophet though.

Seer? Hmmm, is there much difference? Is it one of nuance? Perhaps a prophet has a positive "of G-d" nuance, whereas a seer...doesn't? Or is a seer a degree of prophet, like a prophet in training or something? I don't know the difference, other than semantic.

Pure luck? The stories of both men I have read, both were very actively pursuing and developing their talents. Whether they had a natural knack, I can't say. I suppose it is not *just anybody* who has prescient visions, and even fewer who have prescient visions regarding mankind in totality, and yet fewer still with visions that reach across centuries and millenia.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Yo-eleven!

Hoo-boy! You got that right..

Kindest Regards Juantoo3

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, in my limited understanding, I seem to recall somewhere buried deep in the Old Testament that if a prophet had *any* wrong predictions, he was not to be considered a prophet of G-d. (and was to be stoned to death)

Wow, talk about a tough crowd. sheesh.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With Nostradamus, this becomes problematic in that, the guy is already long dead. He did, however, have a number of predictions that seem to be remarkably accurate, such as one I vaguely recall about a king who was injured in a joust, who died a horribly painful death a few days later. I seem to recall another that mentioned "pig faced men," which in context sounded remarkably like a jet fighter pilot. I like Nostradamus, but my jury is out on calling him a prophet in the Biblical sense. Of course, this thinking could conceivably raise doubts on Biblical prophets like Isaiah and John, but they have enough going for them that I don't seriously entertain that problem.

WoW, I always thought Prophecy or Prophets were not confined to the bible, in that G!D sends his word through his "Prophets" The bible gives us a good sense of what to look for when someone claims to be a Prophet, but it never says that no else beyond the bible could not be a prophet.
I could be wrong though.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Another interesting character is Edgar Cayce. I can't put a finger on why, but I don't care as much for his work as for Nostradamus. Even so, my opinions notwithstanding, the guy has some interesting stuff to consider. I'm not sure I would call him a prophet though.

I have never heard of this guy, but I intend to read up on him.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Seer? Hmmm, is there much difference? Is it one of nuance? Perhaps a prophet has a positive "of G-d" nuance, whereas a seer...doesn't? Or is a seer a degree of prophet, like a prophet in training or something? I don't know the difference, other than semantic.

The main difference between them seems to be just what you suggested.

1. Seer - A person with unusual powers of foresight

2.Prophet- Someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Pure luck? The stories of both men I have read, both were very actively pursuing and developing their talents. Whether they had a natural knack, I can't say. I suppose it is not *just anybody* who has prescient visions, and even fewer who have prescient visions regarding mankind in totality, and yet fewer still with visions that reach across centuries and millenia.

I have to agree here, but the incidents of people seeing things to come is on the rise worldwide.

(IMHO)
The differerence here is that a "Prophet" has the G!Dly insight and nuturing to see events and help people prepare for those events, as compared to a "seer" who just plains see events, but can not nutuer you on how to prepare for them.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Yo-eleven!

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

WoW, I always thought Prophecy or Prophets were not confined to the bible, in that G!D sends his word through his "Prophets" The bible gives us a good sense of what to look for when someone claims to be a Prophet, but it never says that no else beyond the bible could not be a prophet.

I suppose it depends who you ask.

The differerence here is that a "Prophet" has the G!Dly insight and nuturing to see events and help people prepare for those events, as compared to a "seer" who just plains see events, but can not nutuer you on how to prepare for them.

Well, maybe you are on to something.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say.

[jiii]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

The question here is if at least one of his quatrains is percise in predicting any historical event, does that make him a prophet?

I would say, no. After all, I'm sure that if you or I wrote down 942 short suggestive paragraphs, at least one of them would be bound to coincide in at least some way with some event that happens hundreds of years down the road. I mean, its not that you or I are prophets...it's just that a whole ton of things happen in this world.

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Also if not a prophet, then could he be calssified as a seer of some sort,
or could it be deemed as pure luck?

Any thoughts?

So far as the definition you've given for a seer, I would say that he might be considered such...in some vague way. In a certain respect, since he isn't summarily discounted and entirely forgotten as some trivial kook of antiquity, he may have already achieved this title.

You know, so far as seers and seeing...it's all in the eye of the beholder.

-jiii

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by jiii

I would say, no. After all, I'm sure that if you or I wrote down 942 short suggestive paragraphs, at least one of them would be bound to coincide in at least some way with some event that happens hundreds of years down the road. I mean, its not that you or I are prophets...it's just that a whole ton of things happen in this world.



So far as the definition you've given for a seer, I would say that he might be considered such...in some vague way. In a certain respect, since he isn't summarily discounted and entirely forgotten as some trivial kook of antiquity, he may have already achieved this title.

You know, so far as seers and seeing...it's all in the eye of the beholder.

-jiii

Jiii, It is ture that if you or me could write about things of the future and that you or me are bound to get somethings right, but, you got to admit that some of the quatrains are kinda "spooky" in their accuracy.

[Postmaster]

Nostradamus was defo a Seer! Not quite a prophet and not quite your average folk. He didn't deliver a message from God, but used higher abilities to foretell the future.

I think Prophet and Seer there's no kind of heavenly rank granted to someone, we just look back on the way they lived and decide what they accomplished and how seriously we should take them. Nostradamus was no one of significance to the masses but had mystical abilities out of the ordinary view of Christianity. So defo a Seer.

He also had the ability to cure people of illness, also accurately predicted his own death.

[I, Brian]

What's interesting about Nostramdamus is that his prophecies are apparently only prophecies *after* the event has taken place.

I don't believe I've seen any readings of Nostradamus predicting anything in the modern day era that has come to pass. Except with hindsight.

Would have thought prophecy could do better than that?

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, in my limited understanding, I seem to recall somewhere buried deep in the Old Testament that if a prophet had *any* wrong predictions, he was not to be considered a prophet of G-d. (and was to be stoned to death)

I don't know much of Nosotradamus.I don't think he ever claimed that he was Chosen by God as a prophet of God or Messenger of God for guidance of the people, at least not to my knowledge. Bible , to me , only gives this edict for those who claim prophet-hood in the sense mentioned above.The reason being since the prophets calim to have been sent by God , if they are untrue then they must incur wrath of God.
Otherwise people could have developed ESPs (Extra-Sensory Perceptions) and predict in future naturally,that is not punishable.In a way that is useful also,one could know as a proof that future is predictable if God so desires or humans improve their faculties.God knows better.
Thanks

[sara[h]ng]

I think I heard something on a Discovery channel Nostradamus special (that is, I heard/read it somewhere, and I think that's where), that Nostradamus was forced to write so cryptically because at the time, prophets/seers were enemies of the church and an enemy of the church didn't live very long. So that's the other side to the very believable idea that if you write 900-and-whatever short paragraphs, a one or two of them will very accurately fit some event over the millenia. Which is true? I don't know.

Another note, Edgar Cayce commented about his own psychic predictions that humanity has free will and that nothing is set in stone. For those of you not familiar with him, he's mainly noted as a psychic healer/diagnostician and he did do amazing things (curing cancer, arthritis, etc. and that's nothing) with that, all heavily documented and some of his techniques 'discovered' by modern science years after the fact. I can get carried away on that topic, I'm sorry.

To get back to my point, in addition to the health things, he did 'give readings' on philosophical matters and future events. Literally, one can build a comprehensive philosophy on his work and the free will thing is an aspect of that. He said that there are tendencies that people have, courses of action and destinies that very likely will happen, but that nothing is stronger than free will, given by God.

For a well known example, world wide cataclysm has been prophesied by many different groups and prophets and let's say for the moment that they are all right and it is slated to happen. Cayce says that change in the consciousness of humanity could avert it. So, a 'prophet' maybe could be 100% right and still say things that never come true.

Sarah

[Lot]

He was not a prophet. A true one. I dont beleive he even labaled himself as such. Perhaps that was the enquirer.

[sara[h]ng]

But what is the definition of a 'true one'? That's part of what I was contesting. If one recognizes that God gave us free will, which I think many do, that means that actions are subject to change. And if that's true, what prophet can ever be 100% accurate? What may be true according to how things are going at the time may not be true because of how people have willed changes in themselves in say, a thousand years.

And I am not saying that the Bible is wrong about the true prophet quote, just that there may be many interpretations and contexts in which to place it, which could greatly affect the meaning.

Prophet maybe he wasn't, but he was certainly psychic and he certainly made predictions, some of which have come true and some of which haven't, and I do know that that does not make the high percent of amazing things he did less valid.

As a side note, I do not consider Edgar Cayce to have been a prophet either, but I enjoy playing the devil's advocate and in addition to that, my definition of a prophet (which is maybe not the topic at hand) is likely not yours and I think that terms have to be defined and agreed upon before debated upon. I'm willing to go with any definition that has good reason behind it, I think.


Sarah

[jiii]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

But what is the definition of a 'true one'? That's part of what I was contesting. If one recognizes that God gave us free will, which I think many do, that means that actions are subject to change. And if that's true, what prophet can ever be 100% accurate? What may be true according to how things are going at the time may not be true because of how people have willed changes in themselves in say, a thousand years.

Well, it's an interesting point, but that opens the door for a whole lot of further speculation as to exactly what a prophet would be then, you know? Then, one is left wondering what percentage of accuracy is required for a true prophet? How vague can the 'fit' get before a vision goes from a prophecy to a spurious correlation?

Furthermore, if prophets are to be given leeway on account of free will, then do they really differ that much, verifiably, from somebody that is just very skilled at making predictions?

Originally Posted by lot

He was not a prophet. A true one. I dont believe he even labelled himself as such. Perhaps that was the enquirer.

That is correct (not the Enquirer part). Although his work in question was known as Les Propheties which, not surprisingly, translates to 'The Prophecies', Nostradamus outright denied that he was prophet on numerous occasions. Although little is concretely known about exactly how he made his predictions, he did not attribute their arising to messages from God or any deity. I suppose one could argue that he received these messages and didn't know it himself, but that's a stretch that's beyond being reasonable. As far as Nostradamus goes, he is probably most accurately thought of as a 'diviner'...making predictions that, if correct, he might have attributed to supernatural powers of clairvoyance, but not to God. It is largely believed that he transposed historical events, including Biblical ones, into the future using various methods of astrology.

Of course, he denied being a prophet because, in his day, the title "prophet" tended to refer specifically to somebody that was given visions by God. These days, the term "prophet" doesn't always seem to carry this prerequisite.

[sara[h]ng]

Originally Posted by jiii

Well, it's an interesting point, but that opens the door for a whole lot of further speculation as to exactly what a prophet would be then, you know? Then, one is left wondering what percentage of accuracy is required for a true prophet? How vague can the 'fit' get before a vision goes from a prophecy to a spurious correlation?

Furthermore, if prophets are to be given leeway on account of free will, then do they really differ that much, verifiably, from somebody that is just very skilled at making predictions?

Yup. That's definitely an issue.

Sarah