BIBLE ARGUMENT #5
The Book of Revelation SAYS that Mary “wailed alound in pain as she labored to give birth”:
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” Revelation 12:1-2.
Revelation goes on to make it clear that the “child” referred to is Jesus…
“She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.” Revelation 12:5.
In other words, the “child” is CLEARLY Jesus; therefore, the wailing “woman” is CLEARLY Mary.
IT COULDN’T BE CLEARER.
The “beamer-downers” fall all over themselves trying to ignore this very, very, very clear divinely-inspired Bible verse, arguing that the “woman” is called “woman”
because she isn’t Mary. They say that the “woman” is the Church.
Answers to that nonsense:
(1) Why don’t they ALSO assert that the “child” is called “child”
because He isn’t Jesus? Who “put the brakes on” their “logic”?
(2) Scripture speaks at BOTH the “sensus plenior” or “fuller sense” level AND the “plaintext level.” Who authorized the “beamer-downers” to ignore the “plaintext” level of Revelation 12:2?
(3) When the “beamer-downers” have to reluctantly admit that the Revelation 12:2 “child” is Jesus, they in effect read HALF of the sentence as having a sensus plenior level meaning, only, and the OTHER HALF of the sentence as having a plaintext meaning, only!!! In effect, ONE side of their “vehicle” has ordinary wheels, while the OTHER side of their “vehicle” has dragster wheels on super-duper struts.
(4) Revelation was PROBABLY written by John the Apostle. Most Bible scholars agree that though there are stylistic differences, perhaps accounted-for by John’s age when he wrote the Gospel of John, and John’s age when he wrote Revelation, there are too many textual m and philosophical similarities to deny the same authorship.
Now, John lived with and took care of Mary after Christ’s crucifixion. (The Church tradition conforms nicely to John 19:26-27.) John, of all people on Earth, was in a position to learn the details of Jesus’ birth from Mary. More to the point, he was KNOWN to be in a position to learn the details of Jesus’ birth from Mary, and he would have known that his readers would know that he was in a position to learn the details of Jesus’ birth from Mary.
In light of this, HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT JOHN WAS NOT ACCURATELY PORTRAYING JESUS’ BIRTH IN Revelation 12:2?..“She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth”?
Answer: There is NO chance that he was not accurately portraying Jesus’ birth.
(5) Let’s lock-in the “Mary” definition for “woman” in Revelation 12:2 a little tighter…
TWICE in his Gospel, John refers to Mary with the term “woman”:
- “‘When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” (And) Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you.’” John 2:3-5.
- "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” John 19:26.
Now, in light of John’s reference to Mary with the “Woman” title, how likely is it that “Woman” ISN’T “Mary.”
Conclusion: Mary’s labor was VERY painful.
The “bottom line” is that Scripture *dramatically wars with *the *in partu *virginity concept.
and well-reasoned response. I have no idea why it was so easy to accept those two parts of it, but so difficult to accept the third. And mainstream Prots have no difficulty with all three?? 
) and my births were still messy. It had nothing to do with the loss of virginity. Sorry if I misunderstood you.