Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 190863



.> Bart:
> Here's what I (and many others) have gathered: Morty thought that using 
> Harry's blood to revive his body will remove the protection keeping him 
> from touching Harry. It did. However, what it also did was put him 
> inside the umbrella of protection, so it prevented him from HARMING 
> Harry. That is why, when Morty zapped Harry in the Flight of the 
> Harry's, Harry's wand appeared to defend him on its own accord; it was 
> actually the blood link that caused it.

Alla:

Ok, yes, makes sense, so what you are saying is that after blood transfusion in GoF Voldemort himself could not touch Harry at all, not just while he is in Dursleys? 


Bart: 
> Morty could still kill Harry by allowing someone other than himself to 
> deal the fatal blow, and certainly he was going to finally allow that, 
> or someone would get overeager. Unless Morty was defeated, Harry was a 
> dead man. The only way for Harry to defeat Morty was to get rid of his 
> piece of the Mortysoul. Now, what kind of spell would destroy the 
> Mortysoul without destroying Harry in the process? The blood protection 
> was the key: by having Harry open himself up to the AK attack, he would 
> expose the Mortysoul while the blood would protect him. Afterwards, he 
> knew that he could kill Morty, but Morty could not kill him; this is why 
> he could afford to give Morty one last chance to repent.

Alla:

Right, but how does blood will protect the rest of Harry? You are saying that since piece of Voldy is the alien piece of his soul, it is immune from blood protection? But see confusion starts already for me, that is why it always gave me a headache, if Voldy cannot kill Harry, should he not been able to cast that AK at all? Pre Kings Cross I mean, should he had been standing and smiling, if Harry's blood in his body prevents him from harming Harry? I would say sending his whole soul in limbo or wherever counts like harm to me? Or harm is defined as it is convenient for JKR and knocking Harry unconscious and sending him to limbo, where Dumbledore says he does not need to come back at all if he does not want to is not harm?

That is why it is so unclear to me, always was, but read on please.


Bart: 
> That is why most of us think that Dumbledore saved Harry; he only made 
> Harry THINK he was sacrificing himself, in order to ensure Harry's victory.


Alla:

I actually partially agree with you, I may ignore the confusing part about blood of Harry in Voldemort, I mean not ignore, but not pounder too much about it, since it gives me a headache. HOWEVER, I definitely think that after Harry travelling to Kings Cross he is not a horcrux anymore. And now for the main question:


Say you are hundred percent correct in describing what happened. How does it translate in *Dumbledore* saving Harry? In other words, are you saying that Dumbledore knew that Triwizard Tournament would result in blood transfusion? If so, that makes Dumbledore even more evil in my eyes. More importantly, where is the proof that Dumbledore actually knew that Harry taking Avada  and going to Kings Cross will result in Unhorcruxing him? 

Alla