Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

[Mungo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

 

[Mungo]

According to your false interpretation. You are twisting Scripture to conform to your predetermined beliefs. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I believe the Bible, period.

Doesn't say what sort of brothers they were.
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

Nor does the Bible say Mary had other children.

 

[rstrats]

Precisely. Mary is not even mentioned outside of the gospels and Acts 1:14. Paul never mentions her or discusses her in any way, nor do any of the other epistles.

Well, as Mungo said, there is one general reference in Galations 4:4 saying that the Messiah was born of a woman. But other than that, she never has any mention as you point out. Which begs the question, why do you suppose that none of the New Testament epistle writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to mention her if she is intended to be such a vital part of the Roman/Latin Rite Catholic religion?

 

[jaybo]

Doesn't say what sort of brothers they were.
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

Nor does the Bible say Mary had other children.

Believe what you will. I believe what the Bible says. Period.

You can interpret the Bible in any manner that you want but that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

If you think that Mary was "ever virgin" or that Jesus didn't have brothers, that is your problem. I won't debate this with you any more; it's between you and God.

P.S. Where does the term "Catholic" appear in the Bible? Answer: it doesn't!

 

[God Is My Judge]

She is mentioned throughout the OT and that Sign was brought forth with the new covenant- witnessed and penned with the NT. So, don't know what you are talking about.

With that how is she actually Mary Ever Virgin? This is associated with her Dormition and Assumption into heaven. I will give the correct meaning.

Say what? Obviously her name is never given, but it's a bold claim to say "throughout" - I'll need specific citations. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

Genesis 3:15 has no reference to Jesus or Mary and is merely speaking of natural enmity between humans and snakes (which is actually a result of evolution, but the biblical authors obviously could not have known that). Isaiah 7:14 is a reference probably to Isaiah's wife (see 8:3), or Ahaz's. As a scholarly commentary says,

I would also point out that even if it was rightly translated "virgin", that would only mean that she was a virgin when the prophecy was given - in other words, this son would be her first child. It would not mean that she would remain a virgin even after being impregnated.

Page 1.
Are we to believe an atheist and "satanist" is to be believed? Sounds like you are actually putting faith into a presently known doctrine, as "scholarly commentary says". How about what it actually says? I'll do the work for you because it is actually doing the work of God for which I will not be put to shame. Keep listening to the Christ rejecting Jews who don't even know their own OC.
Clearly can't be about Ahaz as you state as "probably being". That is asinine.

2 Chron 28:1-4 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD. He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and also made cast idols for worshiping the Baals. Hence why the Lord says what he does as is recorded in Isaiah.


Isaiah 7:
The Sign of Immanuel
(Matthew 1:18–25) confirmed in Matthew.

10Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11“Ask for a sign from the LORD your God, whether from the depths of Sheol or the heights of heaven.”

12But Ahaz replied, “I will not ask; I will not test the LORD.”

13Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call His name Immanuel ( God with us).15By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey. 16For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

And don't try to drop the Jew argument of " the original text says maiden not Virgin". Because we all know concerning the covenant, the House of David was under, a maiden was a virgin. They weren't out fornicating like in today's standard. If you were unmarried you were a maiden-a virgin, not a prostitute.

Another mention- and it is the Psalms, it is a reference to the ARK that would ascend with the Lord.
Pslams 132:
6We heard that the ark was in Ephrathah; ( This is alluding to what would be and is reiterated by Micah 5:

The Coming Messiah​

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
3 Therefore He shall give them up, ( to whom? The Romans)
Until the time that she ( Who is the She ? The Elect mother- the maiden- the virgin Mary. Also proving what betrothal means- before actual marriage. This verse does not stand for the nation Israel but Mary which is proven with the following verses),
who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel. ( "Then" meaning after she has given birth-then the remnant of His brethren

Shall return to the children of Israel. )

we found it in the fields of Jaar. ( Mary and her son)

7Let us go to His dwelling place; (He was with Mary on earth in that grotto or manger and the shepherds and wise men came to worship him at His footstool- earth, " heaven is my throne, the earth my footstool)-

let us worship at His footstool- ( at His earth)

8Arise, O LORD, to Your resting place,- ( Prophetic for His rising from the dead AND ASCENSION, to the right hand of the Power -His rest!)
You and the ark of Your strength.

( ARK OF His strength means made with His hands. MARY WAS made a new creation at the Annunciation! and not by men's hands like the first Ark made of wood and inlaid with gold or in her mother's womb. It was by the Most High- through the Word of God - The imperishable seed. The wooden ark was only a symbol of who would be it in actuality. ) Fulfilling :

 

[God Is My Judge]

Page 2.
Christ's Perfect Sacrifice
…15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First He says: 16“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.” 17Then He adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”…
( The law was put in her FIRST and from her to all . Can't disrespect Christ's Elect mother or you disobey the law. To honor your mother is in the law.)
Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people.

(When Christ ascended He took the Ark of the new Covenant with Him. He also took those saints the graves gave up, who were baptized when the rocks and curtain split -a nod to Moses when he split the Rock and water came forth and when Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount. Moses Numbers 20:26 And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: (Eleazar means: God has helped).
And Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there. This is prophetic, it meant with the Messiah the Levitical order would come to an end and the order of Melchizedek was instituted. Those still practicing the Levitical practices will go to the mountain to die! Done!

All were baptized by the Most High when the blood and water gushed forth from His side and the tempest occurred. They were taken up because they were the saints from the OC. Proof - Hebrews 9:27 27 Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, -Not twice but once. That would- yes mean too, His friend Lazarus. These were no near death experiences, they were dead and buried for days and centuries even thousands of years. Hence, the Psalm. Most scholars in the least, know the Psalms speak of Christ )

Luke 24:44 “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Prove me wrong!
Continuing with the Psalms:

9May Your priests be clothed with righteousness,

and Your saints shout for joy.

10For the sake of Your servant David,

do not reject Your anointed one.

Mary has truly been exalted by God and we must honor that exalting!
In doing at least that much the Catholics and Orthodox are saved by that grace even if they did not truly understand her titles.

 

[Mungo]

Well, as Mungo said, there is one general reference in Galations 4:4 saying that the Messiah was born of a woman. But other than that, she never has any mention as you point out. Which begs the question, why do you suppose that none of the New Testament epistle writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to mention her if she is intended to be such a vital part of the Roman/Latin Rite Catholic religion?

Why do you say that Mary is a vital part of the Latin Rite (or Eastern Rite, or Orthodox) Christianity?
“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 487)

Any importance of Mary is because of Jesus. As someone said - if Jesus is the Sun then Mary is the moon. She only reflects what Jesus gives out.

As I said to WIP in a previous post

I don't think the Catholic Church devotes to much emphasis with Mary.
It's Protestants on these types of forums that get obsessed with Mary.

 

[Mungo]

Believe what you will. I believe what the Bible says. Period.

You can interpret the Bible in any manner that you want but that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

If you think that Mary was "ever virgin" or that Jesus didn't have brothers, that is your problem. I won't debate this with you any more; it's between you and God.

P.S. Where does the term "Catholic" appear in the Bible? Answer: it doesn't!

And I say
Believe what you will. I believe what the Bible says. Period.

You can interpret the Bible in any manner that you want but that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

If you think that Mary was not "ever virgin" or that Jesus had genetic brothers, that is your problem.

 

[jaybo]

And I say
Believe what you will. I believe what the Bible says. Period.

You can interpret the Bible in any manner that you want but that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

If you think that Mary was not "ever virgin" or that Jesus had genetic brothers, that is your problem.

It's not "my problem". Your problem is twisting what the Bible clearly says to fit your RCC doctrine.

 

[Mungo]

It's not "my problem". Your problem is twisting what the Bible clearly says to fit your RCC doctrine.

You problem is not understanding what "brothers" may mean.
Here is a help
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

 

[T. E. Smith]

That proves nothing.

BTW Mary is also mentioned in Gal 4:4

Still no one before the gospels mentions his mother, and certainly not her name; only Galatians 4:4 references the very concept.

However, even if "born of woman, born under the law" is authentic (which is questionable; I'll get to that shortly), Paul uses the word ginomai, even though gennao (specifically, the participle form gennethenta) would have been more appropriate if he was speaking of normal, human birth. (I'll proceed to defend this shortly.) So why does Paul use ginomai?

Paul uses ginomi in regard to Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:30; Romans 1:3, Philippians 2:7, and Galatians 4:4. Paul probably did not even write Philippians 2:7 himself (it is a hymn he is probably quoting from), but still, he does identify with its theology. In Phil. 2:7, it is translated "made": "made in the likeness of men." I'll point out 1 Corinthians 1:30's meaning below. If ginomai is, for Paul, synonymous to human birth, why does he describe Jesus this way in just these verses?

But look at Paul's other usages. Certainly he uses ginomai elsewhere to describe something unrelated to Jesus. I'll put in bold the word that is a translation of ginomai.

• 1 Cor. 15:45: "Adam became a living soul."
• 1 Cor. 1:30: "Christ Jesus... became to us wisdom from God."
• Hebrews 1:4 (not Pauline, but arguably influenced by Paul): Christ is "becoming so much superior to the angels."
• Ephesians 3:7 (pseudonymous): "I became a minister of the gospel."

Notice it all has the sense of becoming. In Romans 9:11 and Galatians 4:23 and 29, he uses gennao to refer to birth, literal human birth. Why does Paul switch verbs between Galatians 4:4 and v. 23, 29? Furthermore, in none of the other epistles is ginomai used for "born" (see Heb. 11:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7: 5:1: 5:18). On top of all this, whenever the gospels express the idea of being born, they use gennao, its adjective gennetos, or the verb tikto (to bear). Never is ginomai used in this sense. John uses it twice in the prologue: in the verses "all things were made through him" and "the Word was made flesh". All of this evidence indicates that Paul almost certainly was not referring to human birth in Galatians 4:4. I'll now briefly consider the idea that the words "born of woman, born under the law" are an interpolation.

As an Interpolation​

In the mid-second century, the gnostic Marcion used a version of Galatians that is different from the one in our modern Bibles. Tertullian's Against Marcion (sometimes translated Contra Marcion) is a refutation of Marcion's work. Here's Marcion's text:

As a man I say,
When we were barely-born,
We were enslaved
Under the elements of the cosmos.
But when the fullness of time came,
God sent forth his Son,
That he might purchase those under the law,
And that we may receive adoption.
God sent forth the Spirit of his Son
Into your hearts, crying, "Abba, Father."

As we can see there is no reference to "born of woman, born under the law." The important thing is that in Tertullian's refutation of Marcion's interpretation of Galatians, Tertullian never mentions this clause, "born of woman, born under the law." Perhaps Marcion removed those words as part of his gnostic theology - but in that case, Tertullian should certainly have condemned Marcion for removing them, which he does not. Furthermore, "born under the law" would have been useful for Tertullian to bring up to refute Marcion's view that Jesus was not sent by the Jewish God.

What Paul Could Have Meant​

If the words are authentic, which is very doubtful, Paul's usage of a special verb indicates that his words reflect a metaphysical view of Jesus determined by scripture, and not as a recent human man born of a woman. I personally lean towards the late interpolation option, however.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Which begs the question, why do you suppose that none of the New Testament epistle writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to mention her if she is intended to be such a vital part of the Roman/Latin Rite Catholic religion?

Mary was not a concern of the NT epistle writers.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Clearly can't be about Ahaz as you state as "probably being". That is asinine.

Why can't God have theoretically given a sign that Ahaz's wife will bear a child?

And don't try to drop the Jew argument of " the original text says maiden not Virgin". Because we all know concerning the covenant, the House of David was under, a maiden was a virgin. They weren't out fornicating like in today's standard. If you were unmarried you were a maiden-a virgin, not a prostitute.

As I said,

I would also point out that even if it was rightly translated "virgin", that would only mean that she was a virgin when the prophecy was given - in other words, this son would be her first child. It would not mean that she would remain a virgin even after being impregnated.

3 Therefore He shall give them up, ( to whom? The Romans)
Until the time that she ( Who is the She ? The Elect mother- the maiden- the virgin Mary. Also proving what betrothal means- before actual marriage. This verse does not stand for the nation Israel but Mary which is proven with the following verses),
who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel. ( "Then" meaning after she has given birth-then the remnant of His brethren

Shall return to the children of Israel. )

This is the only other relevant passage for consideration, but I do think that the "she" is a reference to Israel.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You problem is not understanding what "brothers" may mean.
Here is a help
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

The first definition should be used in the context of Jesus' brothers. Since he distances himself from his family, he must be excluding definitions 6, 7, 9, and 10; and I think we can all agree that he is not speaking of definition 5 or 8.

What is the third definition? It seems like you left it out.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Why can't God have theoretically given a sign that Ahaz's wife will bear a child?

Really? Now you prove your neurons aren't firing properly. Keep pretexting.
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Ahaz's wife can't be a Virgin if she did not conceive by the Holy Spirit placing a seed in her. In Mary's Immaculate Conception, her Virginity stayed intact. Why? Because it was a clean spotless conception from a supernatural means, not natural or preternatural like fallen angels did. NO INTERCOURSE! Therefore, a Virgin with child. DUH!

 

[T. E. Smith]

Really? Now you prove your neurons aren't firing properly. Keep pretexting.
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Ahaz's wife can't be a Virgin if she did not conceive by the Holy Spirit placing a seed in her. In Mary's Immaculate Conception, her Virginity stayed intact. Why? Because it was a clean spotless conception from a supernatural means, not natural or preternatural like fallen angels did. NO INTERCOURSE! Therefore, a Virgin with child. DUH!

In Isaiah, intercourse is envisioned (see the beginning of chapter 8).

 

[God Is My Judge]

In Isaiah, intercourse is envisioned (see the beginning of chapter 8).

That's nice. Fancy that, the in house atheist/ satanist thinking himself my teacher? The world will never learn.

 

[God Is My Judge]

In Isaiah, intercourse is envisioned (see the beginning of chapter 8).

Isaiah 8: Assyrian Invasion Prophesied

1Then the LORD said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinarya stylus: Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 2And I will appoint for Myself trustworthy witnesses—Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah.”

3And I had relations with the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. The LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 4For before the boy knows how to cry ‘Father’ or ‘Mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”

Annnnnnnd..... you're not serious? This has nothing to do with our discussion. Sometimes I just gotta walk away. Truly, truly, ridiculous! Your spots are showing atheist/satanist . Keep LARPING .As I said to Mungo BYYYYYEEEE..............................................

 

[WIP]

The Bible does not say that Jesus had true siblings.

I disagree with this based on how I understand what is written. There is no place in Scripture where it specifically says He did not.

 

[WIP]

I don't think the Catholic Church devotes to much emphasis with Mary.
It's Protestants on these types of forums that get obsessed with Mary.

There are many threads on Mary here because people keep bringing up various Marian topics and I like to separate topics into their own threads. When I post on other topics there is very little interest.

I would welcome anyone starting threads on other topics. It would make a change to Protestants obsession with Catholics and Mary.

I don't obsess about Mary. In fact, I don't think about her very much at all. What concerns me more is how much emphasis Catholics have with regard to Mary. As I've said before, there are often times when it seems Catholics revere Mary as much as if not more than Jesus Himself and for this reason I am very concerned for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[God Is My Judge]

I don't obsess about Mary. In fact, I don't think about her very much at all. What concerns me more is how much emphasis Catholics have with regard to Mary. As I've said before, there are often times when it seems Catholics revere Mary as much as if not more than Jesus Himself and for this reason I am very concerned for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

Don't be concerned for Catholics, be cocerned with your own salvation. When they come out of the tomb they will have been made anew! Leaving behind the garment marked and splattered with the sins of the world embraced by the denomination they identify with. The 3 Days of Darkness - six seal, will make sure of that. From out of her and some out of Orthodoxy will arise the Elect Kuria.