Pray that God’s will be done. The Lord’s prayer is always a big help to me.
That's a given.
Been there, and done that, but that one is not only always worth revisiting, it is continually needful to continually revisit...
But what I'd like to know, just between you and me, is;
When will you stop posting (and defending) Marianist claptrap?
The word κεχαριτωμένῳ as used in Sirach is identical to the Greek term in Luke 1:28, save for the one letter denoting gender.
Yet when in Sirach is not subject to the same impositions of 'extra' meaning --while Douay-Rheims alone translates as "justified man" ---all other English translation of the same translate as some form of "gracious", etc.
There you go. "Graced" rather than "favored". You should be happy? The past tense is part of the word as employed in Sirach, also, though. Ha. Maybe not so happy?
Then there is the part about how it's impossible to conceive (no pun intended) that the angel was talking to Mary ---in GREEK(!)
This is important, for you've long been saying that the angel spoke a particular *precise* Greek word to Mary.
If an angel did not speak that precise Greek word to Mary (but was speaking some other language to her, such as Hebrew, or Aramaic) and the term come to us from Luke having borrowed from Sirach 18:17 (which was written in Greek in the first place) then all this Greek word parsing biz has been mostly all for naught -- for there is otherwise no trace of 'early church' theology that supports some notion of Mary being fully --not ever- not even in the slightest -- a sinner herself-- just as the rest of humanity (except for Jesus) has from time of Adam, always been.
It is "hateful" of me to say so? More than a mere few of your coreligionists would say so. You may object here, saying you are not responsible for their excesses -- but you ARE always working at upholding the underlying Romish, Marianist theology, and will seemingly say anything in order to never have to admit defeat. That helps set the stage for the rest of the FRomish crew to launch into their "they hate Mary!" false accusations while clinging to their false notions (the ones they got from the RCC).
The dogma of 'Immaculate Conception' -- whatever can be honestly said about it --cannot include that is was 'apostolic teaching' from the beginnings of Christianity. Of that there is no doubt.
Something's got to give, but it will not be me, giving up and giving in to cunningly crafted theological error regarding the virgin Mary, and grotesque frauds such as the Virgin of Guadalupe image, which "image" was not miraculous, but only a painting that in features such as the 'rays' surrounding image representative of Mary mirrored dozens of others paintings in Europe just-prior contemporary to the Guadelupe image's first appearance.
Multiple images (paintings and carvings bearing the 'rays", some with the stars, a few with the folded cloth at the bottom, etc.) that PRE-dated the Virgin of Guadelupe image.
Boom.
Would you like to see them? A few months ago I'd found six, to ten of them -- had kept the tabs open on the desktop for more than week, but suffered a browser crash, so never got around to posting them to you, back when you had chided me for using the word "fraud".
I could possibly find them again. Maybe -- since I do not recall the precise search terms I used... Ah! Now it's coming back to me, a little.
It was serendipitous. I'd come across textual mention of there being many other similar images among the reams of info I'd been wading through concerning the painting in Mexico.
You really should take a look at them. And look at the information regarding the Virgin of Guadalupe Herrera Madura Spain. Representative likeness of that was carried by -- who? He went to Mexico, and took the image with him when he did. Put it all together with history of other Marian artwork, and the linage of the fraudulent "miracle" image/painting down in Mexico comes into stark relief.
BUT -- if you insist I find them, then I insist that you accept my usage of the word "fraud" (and that would be religious fraud - even if you do not agree with the word itself being applicable) to describe the goings-on, and 'just-so' story telling associated with the painting (the so-called 'tilma' which is NOT made of agave fiber) that has misled literally millions of Mexicans into thinking that "Mary" not only "appeared" to a man in Mexico -- but that the painting itself is of supernatural origin.
Do we have a deal? Those are my terms of truce.
If not -- then you know what Andrew said --