Is he really a master of death? He may have mastered the concept but he didn't use the other 2 Hallows like Harry did so wouldn't Harry be the sole master (in addition to say, Death, himself? Ty 05:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
- He is in the sense that he did not fear death, but in a literal sense meaning master of the three hallows, he is not. We should make this a discussion, see if the majority of users think he belongs. --JKoch (Owl Me!) 05:48, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
- This is just me, but I feel that to say someone is the "master" of the deathly hallows, is different then being the "master" over death. Which to me is implied in the books. Harry mastered the three hallows, but Ignotus didn't need to master the three hallows to understand what it meant to be the master of(over) death. --BachLynn23 22:35, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Why did Dumbledore have to tell Harry about the Hallows? Isn't Harry invulnerable already as long as Voldemort lives?
- He wanted to teach Harry how to be a better man then he was. --JKoch (Owl Me!) 04:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Voldemort may not have been able to kill him personally, but that doesn't mean Harry was invulnerable. 18.104.22.168 04:39, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Dumbledore "using" the Resurrection stone?
The article states that although Dumbledore had found each of the Hallows, he only used 2 of them because it is unknown if he ever used the cloak. When did he use the Resurrection Stone? We know why he wanted to use it, and that he foolishly put on the ring, but there is no mention in the books of him ever actually using the stone. We know that wearing the ring was not the same as turning the stone three times in his hand, from Rowling's interviews--that's why Riddle never knew the stone was anything other than a ring. 22.214.171.124 06:15, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Why is he listed under 'Known Masters of Death' when he was only in possesion of one Deathly Hallow, and what means that acceptance nonsense?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).