I don't disagree; however, the phrase used WAS NOT simply "blessed," it was "blessed AMONG WOMEN" and that means among ALL women.
Moreover, when Elizabeth greets her, she says, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." (Luke 1:42) Elizabeth makes NO DISTINCTION between the blessing bestowed upon Mary and the blessing bestowed upon the Lord. Because we know that Mary IS NOT Divine, that blessing MUST refer to a sinless state.
This is in fulfillment of God's promise to Satan in Genesis 3:15 (I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel). Who is the "woman" in this verse, certainly it isn't Eve, it is Mary. Mary crushes the head of Satan with her Seed. Mary is a participant, not an inconsequential bystander. Additionally, the emnities are the SAME between Mary and Satan and his seed as those of Jesus Christ. We know that the emnities between Satan and the Lord are complete and eternal, therefore the emnities between Mary and Satan are the same.
What do you mean, 'must'??? God blessed all kinds of things and people...Nothing else ever became sinless because of a blessing by God...
Blessed does not mean sinless any more than red means popcorn...
Is the the logic and reasoning God gave you guys as a gift???
Breathtaking the logical chasm you just jumped to reach that conclusion.
But another poster did point out the "semitic superlative" that Gabriel's greeting to Mary entailed. So, I agree with you that this greeting is stronger than Job's "blessedness." Doesn't change the meaning of the word 'makarizo,' however, or in any way elevate Mary to some level of Queenship over all creation. That's just a big stretch from a simple statement.
You know, philosophically speaking, what has happened by the elevation of Mary seems to me an example of hellenistic vs hebraic thinking. Hellenistic thinking builds huge thought systems (e.g. theological or mariological) and thrives on "consistency" and "understanding" within the system, even when the system contradicts logical thought outside the system. Hebraic thinking just takes things at face value, and scorns theological systems. The highest good for a hebraic is obedience, for a hellenist is understanding (Matthew Arnold). The Bible was written by hebraic writers.
My point of view tends toward the idea that the hellenization of scripture leads to the Roman Catholic superstructure of doctrines/systems/authority. And the same hellenistic thinking leads among protestants to fractures/denominations/intellectual systems.
I get the distinct feeling that the gospel is a lot simpler than either of these. It is simply based on the hebrew concept of truth as "that which happened (e.g. "gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff)," and the greatest hebrew good of "responding in obedience to what happened."