Prophecy fullfilment in SS?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 98789

> Meri:
> > Here's my question, if Harry had been killed by Quirrell there, 
> > would this have been counted as fullfilment of the prophecy? If 
> only 
> > Harry can defeat LV, then is LV the only one who can kill Harry? 
> > Would Quirrell have been able to kill Harry? Any thoughts? 
> 
> Geoff:
> Yes, but surely at this point, Quirrell and Voldemort were in a 
> symbiotic relationship, so how far were Quirrell's actions actually 
> those of Voldemort? Maybe Voldemort was trying to get his head round 
> this problem.....


Carol:
What about the earlier attempt to kill Harry, cursing his broom during
the Quidditch match? Even though Voldemort is inside Quirrell's head,
keeping an eye on him, so to speak, he hasn't completely robbed him of
his own personality or will. He's not possessed, exactly, since he has
conversations with his "master" and knows who is who. So, IMO, it
would have been Quirrell (or, technically, a fall from a broom), not
Voldemort, that killed Harry if he had died in that scene (rather a
fatal blow to the series as well, but that's beside the point).

My point, or rather, my question is this: We know that Harry is the
only one who can destroy Voldemort, but do we know that Voldemort is
the only person or thing that can kill Harry? I don't see anything in
the infamously ambiguous Prophecy to that effect. "Either must die at
the hand of the other and neither can live while the other survives"
only means, IMO, that if Voldemort is to be destroyed, Harry must
destroy him (in which case Harry will "live" rather than merely
surviving as he does now), but if Voldemort were to destroy Harry, the
only one who can vanquish him, he would become immortal and
invincible. It doesn't mean that Harry can't die (theoretically) in
some other way before the confrontation takes place. Or at least I
don't see anything to that effect in the Prophecy.

Certainly Snape, assuming that he's familiar with the Prophecy,
doesn't think it means that Harry is invulnerable to any kind of
illness or injury other than an AK from Voldemort, or he wouldn't have
thought it was necessary to counter Quirrell's curse at the Quidditch
match. Why try to save Harry from a fall (or from a werewolf in PoA or
the DEs in OoP), if Harry can't die except by Voldemort's hand? (IMO,
if Harry were bitten by Lupin in werewolf mode, he'd be in as bad a
plight as anyone else, and if Bella or Lucius Malfoy had AK'd him,
he'd be dead.)

Opinions, anyone?

Carol