I was wrong:

Quote Originally Posted by doc_bean
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-That part is pretty complicated, essentially: Harry did die, in doing so Voldemort destroyed the Horcrux (which was not fully bound to Harry's soul, since he was shielded by his mother's love), that was baby Voldi in the station, the station is the place between life and death, where he could talk to the ghost of Dumbledore, he did however have a tiny connection with life left (the blood bond with Voldemort), harry had united the Hallows and apparently had become 'the master of death', so he could return to life with the Horcrux destroyed. I'm not entirely sure how important the blood bond is though, that part got pretty complicated

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's actually the blood bond that makes it impossible for Voldemort to kill Harry, but the Voldemort part of him was destroyed by it (since it's dark magic it can destroy a Horcrux).
Harry was the master of death because he had indeed united the three Hallows, but that he came in possession of all three doesn't seem to have him the master of death, rather he got because he WAS the master of death all along, the one who greeted Death as an equal and accepted it. Ultimately I guess the Hallows where more symbolic than anything else, after all, Dumbledore DID defeat Grindelwald when he had the wand (and was the rightful owner).
Of course, this would imply some sort of reverse causality since the wand came into his posesion through a series of coincidences, yet was destined to do so.


Like i always said, HP books are enjoyable, but don't stand up to well against scrutiny...


I have way too much time on my hands...