You assume that "Kecharitomene" has been, so to speak, debunked as a word pointing to a unique and mighty work done by God. You see it as somewhat commonplace, even "de minimis" ---a rather shrunken view which is, to say the least, not proven.
As I proposed in #126, "Kecharitomene" is an unprecedented word, a nonce word. Never used anywhere else in the Bible. Never used anywhere else in all of secular Greek literature, and found only in Christian literature where the author is commenting on its first and only usage in Luke 1:28. It is a one-off event, a hapax legomenon, a singularity not only in the lexical sense but almost, I would say, in the space-time sense. What a delight! And yet --you've never dealt with that fact, neither with delight, nor even (as far as I can tell) with comprehension.
There are reasons why an unprecedented word would be used for an unprecedented phenomenon. It can be fairly analyzed by adverting to Greek grammar, which is what I did, but you simply reject it as "false information" without refuting it.
What great things, what great things God has done! In the context of something so marvelous, the rather lazy rejoinder of "well, it's not all that great," is rather disappointing. I sometimes ask myself why I bother. But of course I write because it delights me to think of what God has done here, as well as for the sake of other readers who may join all the rest of Christendom in that delight.
However because it is used one time does not make it unique in that sense. There are around 400 words (iirc) that are used one time in the NT.
Your attempt at the Greek, while commendable, is based on an incorrect application of the Greek as I've noted too many times on previous occasions.
In either case it does not indicate Mary was sinless no matter how much catholics want it to mean that.
What is unique in this passage is the announcement of Christ to be born.
That should be the focus.....not Mary.
STA will now appear with his “...if they won’t listen to the church...”