As I promised, here is my response to your explication of Rev. 12.
You stated… in this thread forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=136845&page=2
Like you who do not believe Mary assumed. I have shown you by historical evidence and Biblical evidence that Mary assumed. Look at the writings I wrote about the Rev 12.
I won’t go into quoting your entire 2,000 word dissertation… but I will start with stating my position.
The woman clothed with the sun is the early Apostolic Church (the church comprising of the 12 Apostles). This is identified by the 12 stars around her head. She (the early church) is depicted by a woman because the work of a woman is to produce offspring… which is what the Apostles did, they made converts and started churches.
The offspring (or the remnant of the seed) of the Apostles was the first churches and the first converts made by those Apostles… and the converts made by them… and so on, to the present day.
Satan desired to attack the early church which was comprised of the Apostles… but couldn’t because he wasn’t allowed to by God… so the only thing left for Satan to do was to attack their offspring.
Here are the contradictions I see with your position…
You claim that the woman of Rev. 12 is Mary. But Rev. 12:17 clearly states that the remnant of her seed are those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ, and keep the commandments of God.
Since we cannot possibly be physical children of Mary, this portion of scripture must be speaking of “spiritual” offspring and not literal. In this sense, we all who are saved are called the children of God, and are all called “brethren” of Christ (Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21; Matt. 23:8), but it would be quite a stretch to say that we are born of Mary. In fact, you can’t say that… Mary was only a physical mother who gave birth to Jesus… she had no part in any of our physical births, and she had no part in our spiritual births. The Holy Spirit is the person of the trinity who gives new life.
The second contradiction comes in Rev. 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.”
To attribute this reference of a woman to “Mary” is a shallow interpretation. The “man child” is said to “rule all nations with a rod of iron”. Now, we know that to rule anyone with a rod of iron would be to rule by force like a dictator. But, we as Christians are not called to rule the world by force… or to overtake the world by force (although some so-called Christians have done so in the name of Christ).
We as New Testament Christians are only called to preach the gospel in order the further the kingdom of God… which in Christ’s own words… “is not of this world” (John 18:36).
The reference to Rev. 12:5 can only be a spiritual reference to Rev. 2:26 and only refers to… again… the “seed” of the woman, or, the whole of Christians. This ruling of the nations with a rod of iron could mean one of two things… the Millennial Reign where we will sit as judges under Christ, or that we (christians) will advance in the takover of holy land metaphorically by preaching the gospel and winning others to Christ… as was illustrated by the Old Testament battles of Israel.
Thirdly, this man child of Rev. 12:5 is said to be “caught up” to God and His throne. Christ was not “caught up”… He ascended because He IS God. But, we as Christians will be “caught up” to God, which alludes to rising up to a more glorious state and condition… which can only refer to a “rapture” of believers.
In this light, the “man child” which was born of the woman can only be the early church(es) born of the Apostles… which were sent to give birth (metaphorically) to others of like kind.