[paladinan]

Mary’s name is not mentioned once in Revelation.

And why, exactly, is that relevant? The mother of Jesus is most certainly mentioned; do you know of any other womn who gave birth to Jesus, aside from Mary?

That claim is not valid as it cannot be supported by Scripture.

First of all: are you suggesting that, since the exact NAME of Mary isn't mentioned in the passage, therefore "it cannot be supported by Scripture"? That's a pretty tight standard (which most of Protestant theology would fail). Second, that's obviously raw opinion... and it's also based upon the flawed tradition of men known as "sola Scriptura"... which cannot be supported by Scripture.

In short: given that the woman obviously gave birth to Jesus, and since Revelation does NOT clearly identify the woman with anyone else, it simply makes sense to go with the plain meaning of Scripture--i.e. that this is Mary, in Revelation 11:19-12:17.

[ealgeone]

In short: given that the woman obviously gave birth to Jesus, and since Revelation does NOT clearly identify the woman with anyone else, it simply makes sense to go with the plain meaning of Scripture--i.e. that this is Mary, in Revelation 11:19-12:17.

This is comical....a roman catholic, who denies mary had other children in spite of numerous places in the text noting Jesus had siblings, is calling for a "plain reading" of the text.....through catholic lenses.

LOL

[Boogieman]

“In short: given that the woman obviously gave birth to Jesus, and since Revelation does NOT clearly identify the woman with anyone else, it simply makes sense to go with the plain meaning of Scripture—i.e. that this is Mary, in Revelation 11:19-12:17.”

Incorrect. The woman is a symbol in a prophecy, so there is no “plain meaning” there. We have a clear example, in the very same book, of a woman being used as a symbol in prophecy: the harlot, called “Babylon the Great”. In that case, Revelation interprets itself and tells us explicitly that the woman symbolizes a city, not an individual person.

So, you cannot assume that a “woman” in a prophetic vision is a human female individual, any more than you can assume that a dragon in a prophecy is a real dragon, or a lion in a prophecy is a real lion. Clearly, if you try to read the entire prophecy literally as you read “the woman” literally, it quickly devolves into nonsense.