Harry Potter and Christian Theme - SPOILERS

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Personally, I wouldn't give that any weight, as they are also when two of the three long breaks between terms in UK schools are (the other, and longest, being the summer break between years), and many people celebrate them even if they don't believe in Christianity.

Both holidays have become fairly secularized, it's true, but I still find it interesting that they are made much of in the Wizarding world. Folks on the HPFGU (Harry Potter for Grown-Ups) email list speculated that the "three wise kings" who visit the stable in the Christian birth story may have been wizards. I find the idea somewhat appealing, myself.

(To be clear, I'm a universalist-- I think all religions have some truth to them and none of them are complete. I still find it interesting to discuss cultural influences of religion on popular works.)

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

Why did Dumbledore have to die???

Because Harry needed someone to talk to when he died!

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Personally, I wouldn't give that any weight, as they are also when two of the three long breaks between terms in UK schools are (the other, and longest, being the summer break between years), and many people celebrate them even if they don't believe in Christianity.

My feeling reading the books was that the Christian holidays were merely the secularized versions. There are still references to God, though. Sirius sings "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriphs," but I still get the secular feel there too.

There was one moment, beautifully described in TDH, where I think Rowling may be pointing to a "higher magic" as it were.

Deeper and deeper amongst the graves he went, and every time he reached a new head stone he felt a little lurch of apprehension and anticipation.

The darkness and the silence seemed to become, all of a sudden, much deeper. Harry looked around, worried, thinking of dementors, then realized that the carols had finished, that the chatter and flurry of churchgoers were fading away as they made their way back into the square. Somebody inside the church had just turned off the lights.

This is absolutely up for interpretation, but my feeling is that the carols, and the Christmas (the birth of Christ) celebration itself had lent a certain unconscious sense of hope to the moment. It was when the celebration and carols ended that Harry noticed not only the darkness and silence, but the loss of hope -- like the dementors made him feel.

-Pie

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

At least he didn't do a Gandalf and resurrect himself a bit later on...

(Now where did Tolkein get that idea(*), I wonder... )

(* Yes, I know there are plenty of options )

Well, he didn't exactly resurrect himself. He got sent back by the powers he represented. And since he wasn't human to begin with, "taking shape" again was less unlikely.
______
Dennis

[TGS]

There's a very good book by Umberto Eco et al called "Interpretation and Overinterpretation". Might be worth a read,

[wodin]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Both holidays have become fairly secularized, it's true,

Don't you have that backwards? Shouldn't it be that both (secular/pagan, e.g. spring equinox and winter solstice) have become Christianized?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by TGS

There's a very good book by Umberto Eco et al called "Interpretation and Overinterpretation". Might be worth a read,

Have you read the Harry Potter series? You have any evidence from the books that actually refute what I'm saying? Elfwreck also disagreed with my assertions, but he made references to the text.

Originally Posted by wodin

Don't you have that backwards? Shouldn't it be that both (secular/pagan, e.g. spring equinox and winter solstice) have become Christianized?

Indeed, they were pagan prior to being Christian. I heard a radio host going through the history of Christmas, and it's bounced around quite a lot in terms of defining tradition.

And we are kind of in the midst of another "bounce" so to speak. There has been a recent transition toward secularization. Also, I believe paganism is its own religion. I don't think pagan is the same as secular, which is non-religious.

-Pie

[wodin]

Yes, of course your right, I did not mean to imply that Pagans were secular, just that the origins of those holidays pre-dated Christianity by a goodly amount. And not having personally been there, I don't know if they were Pagan or secular.

Neither was I disparaging Paganism as something "non-religious" or in any way less than any other religion.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Both holidays have become fairly secularized, it's true, but I still find it interesting that they are made much of in the Wizarding world. Folks on the HPFGU (Harry Potter for Grown-Ups) email list speculated that the "three wise kings" who visit the stable in the Christian birth story may have been wizards. I find the idea somewhat appealing, myself.

I rather like that idea myself

(To be clear, I'm a universalist-- I think all religions have some truth to them and none of them are complete. I still find it interesting to discuss cultural influences of religion on popular works.)

It is a fascinating topic

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Well, he didn't exactly resurrect himself. He got sent back by the powers he represented. And since he wasn't human to begin with, "taking shape" again was less unlikely.
______
Dennis

True, but it still grated for me when it happened!

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

True, but it still grated for me when it happened!

Gandalf, right?

I find it kind of funny he's considered a Christ figure, but he was decidedly not the one who saved Middle Earth from evil. His character actually contains less allusion to Christ than Harry Potter! (He died and resurrected and... well, that's about it!)

-Pie

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Gandalf, right?

Gandalf, right.

I find it kind of funny he's considered a Christ figure, but he was decidedly not the one who saved Middle Earth from evil. His character actually contains less allusion to Christ than Harry Potter! (He died and resurrected and... well, that's about it!)

I don't know of anyone who considers Gandalf a Christ figure. He's not. In Christian terms, he's a lesser angel. His natural form is a spirit. He's given an old man's body for his mission in Middle Earth.

When he dies slaying the Balrog in Moria, his spirit returns to the West. His task isn't done, so he's given a new body and sent back.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

Here are the relevant aspects of Christian theology and Christ's sacrifice that I will reference; the aspects of Harry and Lily that allude to Christ.

- Christ makes a loving, substitionary sacrifice.
- Christ loving sacrifice imbues salvation (a protection from judgement and
protection from death).
- Christ's sacrifice is offered to all, regardless of what terrible things
they've done (repentance is a necessary part of this).
- Christ's blood is the symbolic vehicle of that salvation/protection.

These are standards of Christian theology, so I won't provide citations.

Before going into Harry being a Christ Figure, I want to cover Lily's sacrifice as well. Her sacrifice is probably the single-most referred to event in the Harry Potter series, and it's imperative to understanding Harry's role as a Christ Figure (Harry did what his mother did).

Here are my claims about Lily -- similar to those I make about Harry.

- Lily makes a loving, substitutionary sacrifice.
- Lily's loving sacrifice imbues protection Harry.
- The blood is the vehicle of this protection.


- Lily makes a loving, substitutionary sacrifice.

Lily sacrificed herself by choosing to "stand in front" of Voldemort to protect Harry. Lily's willingly put Harry's life before her own. To die for someone else -- even if you are sure you won't save the other person, it is still a sacrifice. Indeed, Dumbledore calls it a "sacrifice" (see last textual quotation of Dumbledore below).

We get a substitutionary sacrifice from the text here:

Originally Posted by Lily Potter

"Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead---"

This is the very definition of a substitutionary sacrifice -- "kill me instead."

And loving? Well, Lily never says that she loves Harry "on screen," but it's implied. Feel free to argue that Lily didn't love Harry if you so choose. Then there's that Dumbledore guy talking about her love too.

- Lily's loving sacrifice imbues protection Harry.

Originally Posted by Dubmeldore

"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realise that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign -- to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection for ever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good."

Here we have Lily dieing to save Harry, and her love marking him. And, indeed, Harry survived an un-survivable curse! Something "miraculous" happened. And as Dumbledore explains, what kept Harry from death was the loving, substitionary sacrifice of his mother that protected him from death at Voldemort's hand (wand).

Note that it's her love, not her blood-relationship to him, but her love itself. And indeed, the "love a mother hath for her child" is oft-cited as the strongest love there is.

- The blood is the vehicle of this protection.

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

You would be protected by an ancient magic...I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection...a protection that flows in your veins to this day.

Harry's blood carries the protection. This is why I say "Lily's sacrifice embued Harry's blood with magical protection."

Separate from this is the protection Dumbledore created for Harry at Privet Drive -- that magic required a blood-relationship to work.

Originally Posted by Dumbledore Continued

I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative... She took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you...

The bond of blood is Dumbledore's shield. And here, also, is the reference where Lily dying for Harry is a "Sacrifice."

Why is this important? Harry tells us at the end of Deathly Hallows

Originally Posted by The Deathly Hallows

"You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people --"
"But you did not!"
"--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

This quote is key to Harry-as-Christ-Figure. And here, Harry himself equates his actions with his mother's.

If you want to respond to that quote, I make use it in subsequent posts, and explain it in more detail there.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Now, here are my claims about Harry.

- Harry makes a loving, substitutionary sacrifice.
- Harry experiences a pseudo-death/resurrection.
- Harry's sacrifice imbues protection upon those he loves.
- The blood is the vehicle of this protection.
- Harry shows mercy to most evil personality in his history.

In this post, I cover the first two.

- Harry makes a loving, substitutionary sacrifice.

Like Lily, Harry willingly walks into the forrest and faces Voldemort's Avada Kedavera. He sacrifices himself.

Originally Posted by The Deathly Hallows

Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive. His job was to walk calmly into Death's welcoming arms. Along the way, he was to dispose of Voldemort's remaining links to life, so that when at last he flung himself across Voldemort's path, and did not raise a wand to defend himself...
...
His will to live had always been so much stronger than his fear of death. Yet it did not occur to him now to try to escape, to outrun Voldemort. It was over, he knew it, and all that was left was the thing itself: dying.
...
And Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out, that he would keep going to the end, even though it was his end, because he had taken trouble to get to know him, hadn't he? Dumbledore knew, as Voldemort knew that Harry would not let anyone else die for him now that he had discovered it was in his power to stop it.

"Harry would not let..." Harry is choosing not to let others die for him. He is sacrificing himself.

We also see here the substitutionary nature of Harry's sacrifice. He will not let anyone else die for him. He will go face his own death instead of allowing others to be harmed.

And again...

Originally Posted by Harry

...I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people --"
"But you did not!"
"--I meant to...

Harry's death to stop others from being harmed: Substituting himself for the sake of others.

Lily said "take me, kill me instead." Harry said "I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people." Me instead of you. A substitute.

I do not believe the substitutionary aspect is an imperative to the sacrifice/protection. I believe it is the loving sacrifice that's the imperative. I bring the substitutionary aspect up because I see it, not because I think it's a key to the protection Harry/Lily embue.

So that leaves the loving aspect to his sacrifice.

It's nowhere stated in the text "Harry loves everyone at Hogwarts." But it is implied in his actions throughout the series. He loves Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, Fred, George, Ginny, Neville, McGonagall, etc., etc. etc. Where does that love stop?

Love itself is also stated as the key to Voldemort's defeat in the prophecy as explained by Dumbledore.

He did not know that you would have power the Dark Lord knows not--
'But I don't!' said Harry, in a strangled voice. 'I haven't any powers he
hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people
or--or kill them --'
'There is a room in the Department of Mysteries,' interrupted Dumbledore,
'that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more
wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces
of nature. It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for
study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess
in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to
save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort,
because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests.
In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your
heart that saved you.'

This power that Harry has is love. And this power will ultimately end in the defeat of Voldemort. Yes, the Elder Wand is important, but here, the prophecy refers to love, as Dumbledore says (the only other possibility is the Elder Wand, and that's in Dumbledore's pocket, not the Department of Mysteries).

Drawing the connecting back to Harry's mother, her love saved Harry. The love was a key ingredient to her sacrifice and protection.

Or as Harry puts it...

Originally Posted by The Deathly Hallows

"You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people --"
"But you did not!"
"--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you.

Harry sacrified himself for those he loves. He did what his mother did. That implication takes us further -- specifically, to magical protection, in the follw-up post.

I do want to re-emphasize the importance of "what Lily did." Her loving sacrifice is referred to in all the books. Not "just" standing in front of Voldemort. Not just dying. But choosing to die because she loved Harry, and the subsequent protection that act provided. The action as a whole -- loving sacrifice, protection -- is the most likely explanation for "what my mother did."

- Harry experiences a pseudo-death/resurrection.

Harry experiences a "psuedo-death" and "pseudo-resurrection." It was like a death and resurrection. Not exactly the same, but I believe like enough to make the association to a Christ Figure.

In King's Cross we have the following two quotations.

Originally Posted by The Deathly Hallows

"Then"; I'm dead too?"
"Ah," said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. "That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not."

On the whole, not dead.

But on the whole, alive?

"I've got to go back, haven't I?"
"That is up to you."
"I've got a choice?"
"Oh yes," Dumbledore smiled at him. "We are in King's Cross you say? I think that if you decided not to go back, you would be able to -- let's say -- board a train."
"And where would it take me?"
"On," said Dumbledore simply.

At this point Harry stands somewhere between life and death. A crossroads, a station. He can choose to return to life, or to go off to death. Had the Adava Kedavera simply knocked him out, he wouldn't have such a choice -- he'd just be asleep.

So I call this state pseudo-death. It's also been referred to as "symbolic death" in past threads. It's like he's dead. No he is NOT on the whole dead. But no his not on the whole alive either.

And his return looks from a place like death gives us something like a resurrection -- a return from death.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

For this post, I the final three elements of Harry as Christ Figure.

- Harry's sacrifice imbues protection upon those he loves.
- The blood is the vehicle of this protection.
- Harry shows mercy to most evil personality in his history.

- Harry's sacrifice imbues protection upon those he loves.

"You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people --"
"But you did not!"
"--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

Let me start with word association.

Dumbledore says of Lily's sacrifice -- "to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection for ever."

Harry says "They're protected from you." Note that this word association comes immediately after Harry associates his actions with his mother's.

But where do we see a "protection"?

In the books, a human wizard must have two things in order to control magic: a wand and a spell (spoken either vocally or silently). The following incidents occur without spell or wand.

Voldemort cannot maintain a spell, even when no magical intervention occurs.

Originally Posted by The Deathly Hallows

"He beat you!" yelled Ron, and the charm broke, and the defenders of Hogwarts were shouting and screaming again until a second, more powerful bang extinguished their voices once more.

When Neville faces Voldemort, he cries "Dumbledore's Army!" And here's what the text says.

"Dumbledore's Army!" he shouted, and there was an answering cheer from the crowd, whom Voldemort's Silencing Charms seemed unable to hold.

How did Neville do that? He has no wand at this point.

We have a situation where no counter-charm is cast by Ron, and a situation where Neville has no wand -- required for controlled magic.

Also note that Neville slips from the flaming body bind curse, and comes away unscathed.... With no wand. He could not have broken the charm himself without a wand.

The only viable explanation is that some external force has acted in these cases. Some protection is upon these people. And it's Harry who actually explains that it's a result of his loving sacrifice.

I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?

Remember what his mother did. She made a loving, substitionary sacrifice that directly resulted in protecting Harry from the killing curse. Harry's tells us his own loving sacrifice has done the same, but for a much larger group of people this time!

- The blood is the vehicle of this protection.

This is not stated anywhere in the text. But it's why I made a big deal about the protection Lily put upon Harry.

If Harry's "done what his mother did," that implies the loving sacrifice is sealed in the blood. In this case, it would be the blood of the people at Hogwarts. And we see Voldemort unable to harm them. So it's implied that the blood is the vehicle of protection.

I want to also state that the blood-association is still there even without the implication. We have Harry's blood carrying protection from Lily. Voldemort actually takes Harry's blood to get that protection. What remains is the blood image strongly linked with protection and even redemption. That is very similar to the blood symbol in Christianity.

- Harry shows mercy to most evil personality in his history.

"Yeah, it did." said Harry. "You're right. But before you try to kill me, I'd advise you think what you've done.... Think, and try for some remorse, Riddle...."
"What is this?"
Of all the things that Harry had said to him, beyond any revelation or taunt, nothing had socked Voldemort like this. Harry saw is pupils contract to thin slits, saw the skin around his eyes whiten.

Harry isn't taunting Voldemort with this statement. It's "beyond" a taunt.

"It's your one last chance," said Harry, "it's all you've got left.... I've seen what you'll be otherwise.... Be a man... try... Try for some remorse...."
"Yes, I dare," said Harry, "because Dumbledore's last plan hasn't backfired on me at all. It's backfired on you, Riddle."

Harry offers mercy three times here. Twice asking for remorse, and the third time telling Riddle the plan's backfired. I don't think Harry expects him to accept, but the offer is still there.

And the offer is what matters in "aligning" him with Christ's action -- not the acceptance. Harry offering mercy, offering Riddle the chance at remorse, doesn't go away when Riddle rejects it. The offer was made and stood. Harry was still merciful in the offer.

Compare this to Christ showing mercy to Hitler, Stalin, et al. Christ died for all mankind. Every single human being. This is mercy and it's an action that applies to all people, all time. Nobody is excluded from mercy, no matter how "evil." But some people -- like Voldemort (and probably Hitler and Stalin) -- are "so far gone" they would never choose repentance, or acceptance of the mercy.

Harry offer of mercy parallels Christ's offer of mercy to us, and it's up to us to choose whether or not to accept Christ's mercy -- lack of acceptance, however, does not erase the offer.

Okay, that's pretty-much it. If you read this far, thanks for listening, and I'm happy to discuss further.

-Pie

[pdurrant]

I believe you are mistaken in your comments on blood. The terms used in the text are common phrases used in English to indicate genetic relationship. They all imply that the protection on Harry is because of the love of his mother and his acceptance by his mother's sister.

To suggest that the magic of the protection is literally only in the liquid flowing in his arteries and veins, rather than in his whole person, is to mis-read the book because you so want to make it match what you want it to match.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I believe you are mistaken in your comments on blood. The terms used in the text are common phrases used in English to indicate genetic relationship. They all imply that the protection on Harry is because of the love of his mother and his acceptance by his mother's sister.

To suggest that the magic of the protection is literally only in the liquid flowing in his arteries and veins, rather than in his whole person, is to mis-read the book because you so want to make it match what you want it to match.

Good question!

It may not be clear from my culled notes, but there are two references to blood.

1) Blood relationship, as you refer to in your post.

Dumbledore used this relationship to fashion protection for Harry at Privet Drive. As long as Harry called that home, he was safe there.

2) Harry's actual, physical blood flowing through his veins.

Lily's sacrifice imbues Harry's actual blood with magical protection.

Prior to the end of Goblet of Fire, Voldemort could not touch Harry without some terrible reaction (Voldemort-as-Quirrell, for example). In the graveyard at the end, Voldemort reconstructs his physical body, with one ingredient being Harry's own blood. After taking Harry's blood and making it part of his "new" body, he touches Harry without consequence.

Here's Harry explaining to Dumbledore (wait, isn't that backwards?).

Originally Posted by Harry Potter

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my -- my mother left in me -- he'd have it, too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

Harry's physical blood, flowing through his veins, was imbued with the magical protection that resulted from his mother's loving sacrifice.

-Pie