There are many historical prophecies that people use to promote a point of view in this, the beginning of the third millennium. Unfortunately not all are as genuine as the promoters would like them to be.
And if a prophecy sounds modern, then it probably is - modern!
One crucial test for any prophecy is: where's the original text? If that's not available, then the prophecy HAS to be considered doubtful.
One example is the 'Secret Register of Prophecies' of John of Jerusalem. Now depending on the version you encounter, that is John of Jerusalem of the 12th century, or the bishop of the same name of the 3rd/4th century.
And the original text?
If its from the 12th century we would be expecting a Latin text.
If from the 3rd/4th century Greek, may be Aramaic?
But what have we got?
A text in modern French with a sprinking of archaic words, 'translated' (from what?) by a Russian professor, M.Galvieski, and published in France in 1994 by Editions Jean-Claude Lattes.
OK, so we have no original text, just a modern French rendition. Hmm.
Let's check the translator, Professor M.Galvieski. Anyone heard of him?
So far, no trace in Russian sources (thanks Maxim) or in English in the major library catalogues.
And the origins of this prophecy that conveniently no one has the original of?
Depending on who you consult, Prof. Galvieski found it in a Russian monastery, or in the KGB archives.
Any further interesting details to spice up the story?
Although John of Jerusalem is traditionally associated with a Hospital, here he's associated with the Knights Templar, which nicely ties this prophecy in with all the wacko stuff Dan Brown uses in his detective novel, the Da Vinci Code.
Pity, its a really nice prophecy, and so modern in its concepts. Yeh, right.