[Mrs. Don-o]

("Why would Luke use a completely unheard-of word like "Kecharitomene" (instead of "pleres charitos")?... How would you answer that question?)) This is conjecture and again would be practicing eisogesis.

Conjectur? It's a legitimate question. We're talking about the exact meaning of words.

We talk freely about why St. Paul uses "eros" versus "agape" vs "phileo" vs "storge" --- which English translators almost always render as the same word, "love," but which really demands getting into Paul's mind to see why he is making these distinctions. We're obliged to deal with Paul's word choices and their distinct shades of meaning.

We don't at all mind discussing the difference between "Sarx" and "soma" in verses like "For though I be absent in the flesh (sarx)," "change this vile body (soma) into His "life is more than meat and the body(soma) more than the raiment" "sown a natural (psuchikos) body (soma) raised a spiritual (pneuma) body (soma)" "neither did His flesh (sarx) see corruption" "in the body (soma) of His flesh (sarx)" "all flesh (sarx) is not the same flesh (sarx)"

I'm sure you'd agree that the exact word choices are important becdause they make distinctions between one thing and another.

So to the question: why, reasonably, would Paul pass up words used elsewhere in the NT and common in the Greek "Pleres charitos" and coin an entirely new, unheard-of term (or, better, quote the Angel Gabriel saying something nobody ever said before), "Kecharitomene"?

You don't wonder about that? You don't think it's worth looking into?

[ealgeone]

So to the question: why, reasonably, would Paul pass up words used elsewhere in the NT and common in the Greek "Pleres charitos" and coin an entirely new, unheard-of term (or, better, quote the Angel Gabriel saying something nobody ever said before), "Kecharitomene"? You don't wonder about that? You don't think it's worth looking into?

I don't disagree with examining words in the NT. We all need to do better in learing the Greek behind our English bibles.

Bear in mind there are a lot of one or two use words in the NT. Some more interesting than others from a theological perspective. However, context will help us understand the intent behind the writings.

However, the term Luke has used here doesn't suggest Mary is sinless or remained sinless. I don't find that even hinted at in Strong's or Word-Helps.

That's why I said it was conjecture.

The rest of the passage explains what is about to happen to Mary and her response to the message from Gabriel.

Let context be the key to interpretation.

As I noted earlier, if Mary were sinless, it would contradict Romans 3:23 and the teaching that we are all sinners in needs of salavation. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.