From Participles To Pretension: How Not To Read Greek

          Feodor struts onto the stage of theology like a peacock with borrowed feathers, parading ignorance as insight:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/12/simple-koine-greek-lessons-for-jesse.html

          “The angel Gabriel doesn’t say ‘Hail, Mary.’ Gabriel says, ‘Chaíre, kecharitōménē!’ ‘Greetings, you‑who‑have‑been‑fully‑graced‑forever.’”

          This proposed translation is overstated as well as romanticized. Chaíre simply means “Greetings” or “Rejoice,” a common salutation in Greek letters and encounters. The participle kecharitōménē is indeed perfect passive, but it is not a pronoun nor an imperative. It describes Mary as one who “has been favored” and remains in that state. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with present relevance, not eternal permanence. Most modern translations render this as “favored one” or “highly favored.” The claim “fully‑graced forever” imports theological conclusions into grammar that does not demand them.

          “The verb turned into a pronoun, kecharitōménē, is in the perfect imperative passive form. Meaning an action received that permanently characterizes the receiver.”

          This is grammatically incorrect. Kecharitōménē is a perfect passive participle, not an imperative. Participles describe states or qualities, not commands. The participle here modifies Mary, describing her as one who has been graced. The perfect tense does not mean “permanent forever,” but “completed with ongoing effect.” To call it a pronoun or imperative misrepresents the form and function of the word.

          “Mary is not just full of grace or blessing. She was the recipient (passive) of a command, (imperative) completed action (perfect) that was permanent. She is always fully‑graced, fully‑blessed one.”

          This conclusion is based on a grammatical error. Gabriel is not issuing a command. He is describing Mary’s state. The participle indicates she has received grace, but it does not establish eternal sinlessness or perpetual fullness of grace. The Latin Vulgate’s gratia plena (“full of grace”) is interpretive, not a strict translation. The Greek supports “favored one,” not the doctrine of perpetual grace. The theological leap from participle to eternal ontological status is unwarranted.

          “Because Mary, by faith, humility, and in righteousness, agreed with God to bear God. She is the faithful Theotokos.”

          Mary’s consent is indeed portrayed as faithful, but the incarnation is God’s sovereign act. Luke emphasizes divine initiative (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you”), not human righteousness as the decisive factor. The title Theotokos (“God‑bearer”) was affirmed centuries later at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). It is not a biblical designation in Luke. To apply it here is anachronistic, importing later doctrinal language into the text. Mary’s faith is exemplary, but the text does not elevate her to a unique ontological role beyond being chosen and favored.

          “The Greek word for ‘daily’ isn’t there in the Lord’s Prayer. Not even close. The Greek word, which doesn’t appear anywhere in all of Greek literature ‑ ALL of Ancient Greek literature ‑ but is in both Matthew and Luke, is… epiousion.”

          The term epiousion is indeed unusual, but its rarity does not justify abandoning the plain sense of the Lord’s Prayer. Ancient Greek contains many words that appear only once or twice, and their meaning is clarified by immediate context rather than speculative theology. In Matthew and Luke, the request for bread follows petitions for God’s kingdom and will, situating it in the realm of daily dependence. The prefix epi can mean “for” or “toward,” while ousia often referred to “substance” in the practical sense of livelihood or resources. Thus, epiousion naturally conveys “bread sufficient for life” or “bread needed for the coming day.” To insist that “daily” is “not even close” overstates the case, since the semantic range of the components easily supports the traditional rendering. The eucharistic or metaphysical reading is a later theological overlay, not demanded by the grammar or the narrative context.

          “The prefix epi: above, beyond, or super (like epic), and the noun, ousia, as in the Nicene description of the Trinity: three person’s of one ousia, substance or being.”

          This is selective etymology. Epi does not only mean “above” or “super.” It frequently means “for” or “upon” depending on context. Ousia in philosophical contexts refers to “substance,” but in everyday Greek it often meant “property” or “resources.” Thus, epiousion most naturally means “bread for sustenance” or “bread for the coming day.” To read it as “super‑substantial bread” imports Nicene metaphysics into a prayer about daily dependence, which is contextually strained.

          “So when we pray the Lord’s Prayer.”

          The eucharistic interpretation of epiousion is a later theological development, not the plain sense of the text. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome debated the meaning. Jerome himself translated it differently in Matthew (“supersubstantial”) and Luke (“daily”), showing the ambiguity. The context of the prayer emphasizes trust in God’s provision for daily needs, not metaphysical bread. The natural reading is “daily bread” or “bread necessary for life,” not “super‑substantial bread.”

          Enough work has been done here to expose Feodor for the fraud that he is. He parades around as if he were a scholar, but in reality he is a scholarly underachiever who mistakes bluster for genius and superiority. His errors are not just minor slips. They are the kind of fundamental blunders that reveal someone completely out of their depth. And honestly, this is a perfect illustration as to why lunatics (like Feodor) should be banned from using the internet. They believe their stubborn obnoxiousness to be knowledge and end up wasting everyone’s time.