It was Brian who wrote:

This [i.e., my comments about kecharitomenê and Mary being "full of grace"] is tough to argue on two counts… First, the comment is tossed out there with no supporting argument. Then, on top of that, it would take me about 1000 words to defend with about 50 separate, sound arguments. In leiu of that, I suggest the book “Hail,Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn as an easy read and a decent place to start. God bless.

He claimed that “1000 words… [and] 50 separate sound arguments” would refute what I asserted about kecharitomenê and its use by Catholic apologists to argue that Mary was “full of grace” and hence the Mediatrix of every and all grace(s).

Yet he never once offered a refutation of what I was saying (and repeatedly saying) and the verb and its morphology. Instead, he dragged in unrelated arguments and ended with a “you have your experts and I have mine.” Yet none of “his” experts or citations responded to what I was saying about the nature of the perfect passive participle.

If my interacting was in bad taste, his exhibited bad sportsmanship.

So be it.

I find your way of interacting to be in bad taste. With all due respect it is the Protestant that is “the fish that does not know it’s wet”. As Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

You still don’t get it.

I am not so much disputing how kecharitomenê is translated as what a perfect passive participle is being presented as meaning or signifying.

As I said, you still don’t get it.

As fish likely don’t know that they’re swimming in water, your responses suggest that you don’t know that all you are capable of seeing is what is filtered through Roman Catholic spectacles.

Take off the glasses, engage your brain, and … as Augustine thought he heard: Take up and read. You might learn something.

You have the Scriptures – all ~400 of them.

Do the math.

You lose.

You say the root might be, buy may not necessarily be, charis (which allows that it might indeed be charis). That’s the problem with translations and why some say, “Every translator is a traitor” (because translations “flow,” in a manner of speaking, and often times something’s gotta give; compromises abound.) So we’re left wondering what then is a reasonable transliteration of kecharitômenê? One of my buddies (a former RTS Charlotte graduate well versed in Greek) says, “Hail, the one who has been graced.” This sounds perfect tense to me.

So, where that leaves us that you can marshall several who see it your way, and I can marshall several who see it mine. Do we, dare I ask, need an authority outside of scriptures to settle this? You present this as if Keating has come up with a new interpretive definition of this term, yet I can quote Augustine, Ambrose, Damascene, Ephraim, and others (including Luther – done earlier – and Calvin) all of whom clearly hold to the understanding of kecharitômenê that you dispute! And as you know, many of these guys go back to the earliest centuries of the Church.

Also, notice I brought Luther’s quote back into this as relevant, so what you label as non sequiturs, I see as a pertinant aside, or in the case of the Sproul quote, analogous.

So, gather up your evidence from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries giving credence to the “rent a womb” understanding of Mary that it seems would be the likely result of dismantaling kecharitômenê, and then I’ll consider that maybe you have a point.

Save yourself some time. Just look up all of Luke’s instances (i.e., Luke and Acts) of the perfect passive participle. That’s less than 120 verses.

That’s plenty for you to see what I’m saying about Keating’s claim for the meaning or significance of a perfect passive participle.