Timeline for Why didn't Harry Potter use the Resurrection Stone?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2017 at 9:46 | comment | added | Gallifreyan | Not at all - I'm using brought back in a spiritual sense, which I claim didn't happen as well. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 9:03 | comment | added | Oak | You're purposely using the term brought back as in physically ressurecting someone, which like I said did not happen. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 8:18 | comment | added | Gallifreyan | I am in now way convinced they are the personalities of the dead persons, and it is in no way clear to me that anyone was brought back. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 8:16 | comment | added | Oak | Like I said, it doesn't bring the people "ressurected" back to life, just an image of them with their personalities. This is more clear in the books, but in the movies itself Harry did use the stone to 'bring' those four characters back, even if for a few minutes | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 8:12 | comment | added | Gallifreyan | The Hogwarts ghosts retain the personality of the person. I fail to see how the spectres have a personality, especially given that they can't be seen by anyone else (so no one can verify they don't exist purely in Ring-wearer's mind); I think there's also the stance of JKR, which is "nothing can cheat Death", meaning nothing can truly come back to life. There's also the testament of Dumbledore who said that "necromancy is a branch of magic that never quite worked". | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 7:17 | history | answered | Oak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |