There is only one place where ‘full of grace’ is actually found in the GREEK text (John 1:14) throughout Scripture.
In Acts 6:8 Stephan is described as πληρης χαριτος the literal which translation of which is "full of grace", as you say.
Incidentally, while you say "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace), I think pleres charitos would be a better transliteration, the η being the 'eta', the Greek 'long e' and the χ being the "chi", whose exact pronunciation was being debated when I was doing this stuff, but most people seem to go with the 'ch' of the Scots "loch".
I think citing the AV for definitive translation is assuming the thing to be proved. But I also think that we simply do not have enough instances of the use of the perfect passive participle of χαριτόω to make any definitive statements, one way or the other, about its meaning. To those of us who agree with Catholic ecclesiology, "full of grace" would be the 'dynamic equivalent' of the p.p.p. in the context of unfolding doctrine. And to those who don't, "full of grace" would seem to be over-reaching.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
I really need an LXX. The oldest use of the verb seems to be in Sirach 18:17, but that's not enough info to develop a sense of any 'traditional' or 'technical' meaning. It's frustrating.
One without sin does not need a Savior, only a sinner needs a Savior. If Mary was without sin, then she LIED in this passage! That would then make her a sinner wouldn’t it?!?!
The principle point of the original post is that that simply does not follow. I could say that my rabies inoculations "saved" me from rabies without implying that I ever had rabies, and my seatbelt "saved" me from injury without implying I had injury. "The guardrail saved me from falling off the edge," doesn't mean "I fell off the edge."
Further (and finally) to say someone said something not true is not to say someone lied. I do not think you lied when you wrote, There is only one place where ‘full of grace’ is actually found in the GREEK text (John 1:14). You were mistaken; it's not true, but that doesn't make it a lie. I do not think you intended to deceive.
Acts 6:8 – Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ.
Yes I was aware that ‘plaras karitos’ is used in Acts 6:8; however, it is not used in that passage in the translation sense of being ‘without sin’ as the RCC translates “full of grace”. The only place in Scripture where the GREEK text uses ‘plaras karitos’ in a way that would conform to being ‘without sin’ as the RCC definition places it would be John 1:14 when referring to Christ alone.
But I have to thank you for showing the rest of the thread Acts 6:8 as well. Good job, I was going to leave it alone and just focus on John 1:14, but hey, since you’ve pointed out Acts 6:8 its now fair game. The 2nd usage of ‘plaras karitos’ in Acts 6:8 actually further weakens the RCC definition on what 'full of grace' means. BTW: In both places where ‘plaras karitos’ is found neither one refer to Mary!
Why is the RCC interpretation weakened by Acts 6:8 and plaras karitos??? Because the RCC has raised ‘full of grace’ to mean without sin, i.e., immaculate conception regarding Mary. Is the RCC going to suggest as well that Stephen was without sin????? See where I’m going here??? That would be ridiculous. Christ was without sin, absolutely, so the RCC def. fits in John 1:14, and as I said, John 1:14 is the ONLY place in Scripture where the RCC definition would fit the Greek text. Stephen and Acts 6:8 is all together different isn’t it?
All Acts 6:8 does is reaffirm that ‘full of grace’ does not mean sinlessness (unless you are referring to Christ alone) and the RCC definition regarding Luke 1:28 and ‘full of grace’ is an error.
And we’re still back to the phrase ‘plaras karitos’ (charitos is mere semantics) πλήρης χάριτος is still not the phrase used in Luke 1:28. Luke 1:28 uses an entirely different word: κεχαριτωμένη. So again I ask why didn’t Luke use πλήρης χάριτος instead of κεχαριτωμένη if he wanted to convey that Mary was ‘full of grace’? He didn’t. He said she was ‘favored’. That’s it.
The principle point of the original post is that that simply does not follow. I could say that my rabies inoculations "saved" me from rabies without implying that I ever had rabies…. [Regarding Luke 1:47 and Mary’s statement “God MY Savior”].
LOL! Word games. It definitely does follow and quite well too. Unless you’re trying to defend the indefensible and have to result to word games to do so! You’re going to have to do better than that. There is not ONE verse in Scripture that ever suggests Mary is sinless. Not one. Romans 3:23 refutes it and whether you like it or not Mary herself refuted it.
"For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” -Origen, Against Celsus 4.40
Vincent of Lerins pointed to the ‘sinlessness of Mary’ doctrine as a Pelagian heresy. You see both Pelagius and Celestius, two early heretics, were using Mary as an example of one born free of original sin. This teaching was very early considered heresy. Note what Vincent of Lerins actually SAID:
"Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?' (Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.62, Series Two, vol. XI, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 149-50).