I have been blocked from writing her on FB, perhaps bc once nearly a decade ago, I had a crunch on her, I think she is now past the age to be interesting for me, since I like my future marriage to be fertile.
This block means, I cannot with her pursue the politics of adressing notifications to her when I meantion her writings.
Today, she has unknowingly provided a very great argument for the Catholic view of the Eucharist.
Both in Genesis 2 and 3 in the LXX and in Romans 6, she finds a fruit leading to shame and to death, and in both places she also finds a fruit that in itself leads to life.
Let's see what it says about this:
In both Genesis 2–3 and Romans 6, fruit also leads to eternal life. In Genesis 2–3, this is the fruit of the tree of life, from which Adam and Eve were free to eat prior to the Fall. However, after the Fall, they were removed from the Tree of Life to prevent their eating and living forever. But as Paul says: “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Romans 6:22). This is consistent with the image of believers having free access to the Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2).
Now, Romans 6:22 says that "the fruit you get leads to ..." - in Greek, "you have the fruit into sanctification".
But a fruit leading one to sanctification must be received before one get's to the New Jerusalem. Where?
Well, there is a very obvious answer, but certain Protestants may not like it. In the Eucharist we eat the author of grace, Christ Himself./HGL
* Actually, her work was republished yesterday.
