As I mentioned, I would be suspicious of those attempting to create a New California since they could very easily be falsely attempting to fulfill the prophecy, just as various false prophets recorded by Josephus falsely claimed to be Israel's messiah (and as I've mentioned on recent programs, the OT actually encourages this suspicion). But why should we object to the idea in principle? In Isaiah 44 God claims to be able to declare the future before it happens, which is how he distinguishes himself from the false gods. So if that same God shows up in real history, why would it invalidate his program to fulfill what he himself planned to do? So, yes, Jesus had a messianic mission to "fulfill" what was written about him, which included riding on the "foal" of a donkey, and giving his life as a ransom for many, among many other things (including being born in Bethlehem, which was out of his control completely. Most importantly, he had to orchestrate the manner of his own death (which involved piercing, cf. Is 53:5, Ps. 22:16, Zec 12:10) his burial (which involved a rich man in his death (Is 53:9) and his resurrection (Is 53:10-12). Most amazing of all is the fact that numerous OT texts declared that Israel's God would be worshipped around the world as a result of the messiah's work (Gen 22:18, Ps. 22:27, Is 9:7, 52:10, 15) and this ended up happening. It seems clear that you've been reading books by skeptical writers, perhaps you should give equal time to those on the other side. I'd recommend that you start with Eusebius' classic book, Proof of the Gospel.
Would you agree that something shouldn’t really be considered fulfilled prophecy if the person fulfilling it is purposely working to achieve it?
For example, if somebody declares, “Someday there will be a New California,” and then others spend years trying to make “New California” a reality and eventually make it happen, is that a fulfilled prophecy?
As I mentioned, I would be suspicious of those attempting to create a New California since they could very easily be falsely attempting to fulfill the prophecy, just as various false prophets recorded by Josephus falsely claimed to be Israel's messiah (and as I've mentioned on recent programs, the OT actually encourages this suspicion). But why should we object to the idea in principle? In Isaiah 44 God claims to be able to declare the future before it happens, which is how he distinguishes himself from the false gods. So if that same God shows up in real history, why would it invalidate his program to fulfill what he himself planned to do? So, yes, Jesus had a messianic mission to "fulfill" what was written about him, which included riding on the "foal" of a donkey, and giving his life as a ransom for many, among many other things (including being born in Bethlehem, which was out of his control completely. Most importantly, he had to orchestrate the manner of his own death (which involved piercing, cf. Is 53:5, Ps. 22:16, Zec 12:10) his burial (which involved a rich man in his death (Is 53:9) and his resurrection (Is 53:10-12). Most amazing of all is the fact that numerous OT texts declared that Israel's God would be worshipped around the world as a result of the messiah's work (Gen 22:18, Ps. 22:27, Is 9:7, 52:10, 15) and this ended up happening. It seems clear that you've been reading books by skeptical writers, perhaps you should give equal time to those on the other side. I'd recommend that you start with Eusebius' classic book, Proof of the Gospel.
Would you agree that something shouldn’t really be considered fulfilled prophecy if the person fulfilling it is purposely working to achieve it?
For example, if somebody declares, “Someday there will be a New California,” and then others spend years trying to make “New California” a reality and eventually make it happen, is that a fulfilled prophecy?