Various very spoilerish responses and a further question

[Randy]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "psychic_serpent" 
<psychic_serpent at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" 
> <erisedstraeh2002 at y...> wrote:
> > And again, I'm sorry, but I can't see any way that Harry is 
> > carrying a horcrux.  Voldemort hasn't been able to get anywhere 
> > close to him (other than in the graveyard in GoF, and we 
witnessed 
> > that scene, and there was no horcrux-planting going on).  
> 
> It's the scar.
> 
> Voldemort inadvertantly creates the horcrux when he tries and 
fails 
> to kill Harry when he's a baby.  He was probably going to Godric's 
> Hollow to get an artifact from Gryffindor to use for the last 
> horcrux, so he only had two out of the seven portions of his soul 
> left.  (Thrice refusing to give up the artifact may be how James 
and 
> Lily defied him.)  James's death served the purpose of providing 
the 
> death that would allow Voldemort to create the horcrux, while 
> Harry's death was meant to get Prophecy Boy out of his way; Lily 
> wasn't meant to die because Snape asked her to be spared, in all 
> likelihood.  But since she made trouble Voldemort had no 
> compunctions about killing her, even though Snape gave him the 
> prophecy.  Her sacrifice changed everything, creating the blood 
> protection that caused the AK curse to backfire on Voldemort, 
> dividing what was left of his soul into two parts, one of which 
went 
> into Harry's scar (imbuing him with some of Voldemort's powers, 
such 
> as Parseltongue) and the other part becoming a bodiless spirit.
> 
> Jo said that the question we should really be asking is WHY DIDN'T 
> VOLDEMORT DIE?  The clue is in the very first chapter.  Fudge says 
> this:
> 
> "That is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed?" 
[page 
> 11, US edition] 
> 
> It is possibly the most important thing that he says.  IS 
Voldemort 
> alive if he can't be killed?  "Neither can live while the other 
> survives," is what the prophecy says.  Perhaps Voldemort cannot be 
> said to be living, technically, while Harry survives, because 
Harry 
> has part of his soul inside him (the scar), so while Harry-the-
> Horcrux lives Voldemort cannot be killed, ergo, he is not 
> technically alive.  Harry also cannot be killed because his 
mother's 
> love is protecting him, so since it was not possible for Voldemort 
> to kill Harry, technically HE is not alive either (by the same 
> definition, that to live is to be someone who can be killed).  But 
> it is, according to the prophecy, only while Voldemort survives in 
> some form that Harry is not able to be killed, so it would seem 
that 
> Harry CAN be killed once Voldemort--and all of his soul--is truly 
> gone.  So Harry himself does not need to be "destroyed"--only his 
> scar.  I believe that this will be the last word of the last book 
> because he will no longer have it but he WILL survive.
> 
> I also have some detailed notes on Chapters 1 and 2 on my LJ:
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/psychic_serpent/
> 
> (The part about Fudge's quote is in the notes on Chapter 1 but I 
> didn't mention the scar being the horcrux yet.)
> 
> --Barb

I really like this idea.  It fits in well with the Philosopher's 
stone.  Nicholas Flamel decided it was best to give up his 
immortality and destroy the stone.  From a willingness to die comes 
a full life.  Lily also decides to die to give life to Harry.  

The phoenix must die to give birth to itself.  Harry must be willing 
to give up his own immortality (given him by mistake by Voldy).  He 
allows Snape to kill Voldemort but becomes mortal again?

Red Eye Randy