Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall?

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 90140

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Fred Waldrop" > > 
> I have been thinking about the prophecy a lot for a while now.
> (page 741 UK & 841 US OotP)
> "THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROCHES....BORN 
> TO THOSE WHO HAVE THRICE DEFIED HIM, BORN AS THE SEVENTH MONTH 
> DIES... AND THE DARK LORD WILL MARK HIM AS HIS EQUAL, BUT HE WILL 
> HAVE POWERS THE DARK LORD WILL KNOW NOT... AND EITHER MUST DIE AT 
> THE HANDS OF THE OTHER FOR NEITHER CAN LIVE WHILE THE OTHER 
> SURVIVES... THE ONE WITH POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD WILL BE 
> BORN AS THE SEVENTH MONTH DIES..."
> 
> Now I know it is only my opinion, but the two parts that jump out 
at 
> me are "THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROCHES" 
> and "AND EITHER MUST DIE AT THE HANDS OF THE OTHER".
> Now my point is this, LV COULD NOT kill Harry, because at THAT 
TIME, Harry was not able(old enough, powerful enough?) to kill LV.
> And until Harry DOES have the power/will/ability to kill LV, LV 
> will not be able to kill Harry.
> Because in the prophecy,  "THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE 
> DARK LORD" has to be able to kill LV, because the prophcey says  
> "EITHER MUST DIE AT THE HANDS OF THE OTHER". It give BOTH Harry AND 
> LV a chance, not just one or the other.


I'd like to point out that "the one with the power to.." doesn't 
necessarily mean "the one who can...". It depends on how you 
interpret 'power.' It can be viewed as a potentiality, rather than as 
an active force. E.g., Harry had always had the power to produce a 
Patronus, but was not always able to do so (because he lacked the 
knowledge, he lacked the self confidence, etc.). In that case, baby 
Harry was vulnerable, since of course he couldn't have vanquished 
Voldemort then. That, of course, was what Voldemort was hoping for - 
to eliminate his mortal enemy before he posed a real threat to him. 
The fact that it didn't work out, doesn't mean that it categorically 
*couldn't* have worked out. 

> 
> Also, I think the reason in GoF, chap. 36, "The Parting of the 
> Ways", Harry says, "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a 
> gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes."
> I think that Dumbledore knows that it is not really Lily's 
sacrafice 
> that saved Harry (I think it could have made it a lot eaiser for 
> Harry, IE he just gets a scar instead of something worse. Without 
> Lily's sacrafice, Harry could have been hurt much worse but still 
> have lived.)


On what do you base the assertion that it wasn't Lily's sacrifice 
that saved Harry? 


Naama