Just to add to the above, how we are all part of the ‘Body of Christ’ (Ro 12:5,1 Cor 12:12,12:27, my take is we are all part of that child in Rev 12. We are not part of Jesus’ birth via Mary. So it indicates a different Christ being that now includes us as part of him (demostrated thru the last supper weird stuff Jesus said) which is exclusively not Mary, yet this ‘body of Christ’ which includes us must somehow be formed, which requires Jesus to first be born of Mary. So a second entity giving birth to Christ would answer this and Rev 12 shows this.
Bear in mind that God is considered neither male nor female, though Jesus of course presented Himself as male. These aren’t the best citations, but I’ll provide them anyway: Cite (do a word search for male, and note that the comment is provided by the author of the article) and Cite.
Here’s the fuller citation, from wiki: Regina Caeli, 31 March 1997 | John Paul II
So from this perspective, God is both male and female in nature, though He has revealed Himself with male terminology. [1]
[1] I crib from forum member Michelle Arnold, from an apologist link above.
God has revealed Himself to those who have established a patriarchal religion much like how God has established Herself those who have a matriarchal religion. Possibly some human bias here 
Two of the Virgin Mary’s titles in Catholicism are “Queen of Saints” and “Queen of Angels”. (Also for queen titles, there’s Queen of Heaven, Queen of Prophets, Queen of Prophets, Queen of Apostles, Queen of Martyrs, Queen of Confessors, and Queen of Virgins.
She went to Heaven. I’m sure you realized that it’s part of Christian belief that humans can go to Heaven?
And the Queen of the Angels is definitely Mary.
And “Queen of Heaven and Earth”, as in the fifth Glorious Mystery.
In fact, there are very few angels mentioned by name in the Bible. Either two or three depending on which religion you belong to. Gabriel and Michael are mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments. Raphael is mentioned in the Book of Tobias (Tobit). That book is considered apocrypha to both the Protestant and Hebrew scripture, but canonical for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
As far as Muriel and Ariel, I find it interesting that Gustav Davidson, in his A Dictionary of Angels, uses the masculine pronoun for both of them. I don’t know if that means anything or not.
“Ariel” is a male name in Hebrew. A certain late Prime Minister can attest to this.
Several of the names of angels appear (as gods) in other ancient religions in the region. Uriel in particular was popular over a large area. That -el ending is pretty common. (“El” itself was the name of one widely known god.)
One of the more interesting ones was found on a tablet in one mound in northern Mesopotamia where apparently the locals worshiped a god named “Daniel”.
More objective investigators of religions of the region think that most, if not all, -el people/angels in the oldest parts of the Bible are gods that got demoted.
Anyway, getting back to goddesses:
“Esther” may also be a goddess re-written as a person. (A lot of people are really unhappy with this suggestion. But it makes a lot more sense than thinking her story actually happened.)
For that matter, in the Christian era, it’s not unheard-of for a god(ess) to be demoted to a saint. St. Brigid, for instance, may have just been a repurposing of the stories of the goddess Brigid, and even if Brigid the Human were historical, her popularity certainly benefited from association with the goddess. I’ve also heard that some saints became quite popular in Central America, not because of the stories of the saints themselves, but just because their feast days happened to fall on dates already celebrated in the native religions.
This does not explain the child & pregnancy.
And while this happens in the heavens, it does not agree with the promises that God has made for humans who have achieved eternal life. So again I propose either Mary was not human, or these are 2 separate beings. The other possibility is that Mary was transformed into a angel, but there is no scriptural support for such a transformation.
It’s the only thing that explains the child and pregnancy. Just how many mothers do you think Jesus had?
In Judaism, Asherah was worshiped up to the point where the OT started to be written as a monotheistic text (roughly 500 BC). Likely, other Canaanite goddesses were being worshiped at least as late as 900 BC.
Based on a large chunk of the early non-Pauline texts that we have, it seems plausible that Jesus taught his followers to worship Sophia.
And as Mark Twain once noted, the Catholics of Europe seemed to worship, in descending order:
First: “The Mother of God” - otherwise the Virgin Mary.
Second: The Deity.
Third: Peter.
Fourth: Some twelve or fifteen canonized popes and martyrs.
Fifth: Jesus Christ the Saviour (but always as an infant in arms).
The OT is actually fairly welcoming to the idea that there are other gods and spiritual creatures. Its stance is that none of them are to be worshiped nor worthy of being worshiped. I wouldn’t say that it explicitly states that there are other gods, but that’s probably because at the time it was written, there was no need for anyone to make such a statement. It’s like, if I talk about how my car is the best car of all cars, well then I’m not technically saying that there’s more than one car in existence, but I’m pretty heavily implying that there are. And I would never write something to clarify that, yes, there are many other cars in existence because it’s clear to everyone that such is the case. That’s basically how the OT references other deities.
Scripturally 2 that we know of, Mary and this being in Rev 12, distinctly different. Multiple mothers are not out of the question. John the Baptist is the Elijah that was to come. We know that in the form of John he did have a mother, I don’t recall if scriptures speak of Elijah’s mother, but I feel it reasonable that there was a different mom then Elizabeth.
We also have Jesus’ words about being born again and his words that Matt 12:46-50 indicates a different (and in this case 3rd) mother.
Ok…here’s Revelation 12 and my interpretation. Personally, I think this makes more since than some spirit woman.
The Virgin Mary is pregnant with Jesus. The twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel.
The devil, or the forces of evil, or whatever, want to stop Jesus before he can accomplish his mission/Herod wants to kill the baby Jesus when he’s born
Jesus is born, is destined to rule over the world, is God, or equal to God, or become God
The Holy Family goes into Egypt to escape Herod.
Satan is cast out of heaven, the forces of good are triumphant.
Satan, who’s job in heaven was to condemn and accuse men, has been replaced with Jesus, who’s job it is to save and advocate for men, so heaven rejoices, and the people who died for Jesus helped make the change but on earth, there’s misery, for the power of the devil is now in the land, and Satan, knowing he’s about to be overcome, is going to redouble his efforts to cause pain
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
This is all about the persecution of the Church and Christianity by the Romans.
How do you reconcile that the woman is Mary, but at apparently the same level as Satan and Micheal? If you bring down Mary to human form you would also bring down Satan and Micheal to that level. They are of more equal status/ equal level.
Also consider Rev 1:20 where stars are defined as angels while lampstands was defined as the human counterpart to those angels. So a dual existence, paralleling each other and perhaps why is it so easy to just call her Mary. Jesus also relates this dual existence, heaven and earth mirroring each other (those who see me see the Father, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven this would also have to apply to the curse on Eve, painful childbirth, to heavenly beings which we see in Rev 12). Also going into the OT, the sea and the arc of the convenient are replications of what is in the heavens.
Mary is not of the same status as Satan or Michael. She’s higher. Is there any reason why a human can’t have authority over angels?
It’s not the status so much and the relative size that I am looking at. In that this woman, Satan and Micheal do seem to be comparable, perhaps not exact, but the same ‘order of magnitude’. Also I do not take it from Rev 12 that she is higher then Satan or Micheal (not that she is not, just I can not see it from Rev 12). This being does appear to have angels (stars), but so does Micheal and Satan. I do place all 3 at the level of Archangels.
Scripture does point that the the Father will command them on behalf of us, however Joesph did physically engage a angel and insist that it bless him which was done- this is the closest I can recall about a person commanding a angel. Lot also bargained with a angel. We will also judge angels. Jesus said he can ask his father and the father would send them. It does not seem directly within Jesus’ power but it is indirectly so. Jesus does directly command fallen beings such as demons and Satan.
My own take on this is angels are our parents, and unlike here where the (human) parents control things and are responsible for their children, on the angelic level the (human) children control things to the degree we are able to understand and the angelic parents are responsible to us. So there is a degree of control along the lines of ‘a little child shall lead them’.
Continuing Rev 12, looking at the child, this woman’s offspring (offspring = ‘singular’ in the heavens) are “those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.” (those = ‘plural’ on earth) . So this one child born in the heavens are the followers of Christ, and not just Jesus that one person. (From v17)
Rev 12:5 defines the child as someone who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” In Rev 2:27 we see that also includes (some of ) us:
26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the [o]nations; 27 and he shall [p]rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father; 28 and I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’
So I contend this child is not Jesus born to Mary, but a different being, that is forming called the body of Christ, a much larger one that we will all take part of. Also the reason Jesus gives us His name and His authority, His Spirit and inheritance, because we are all that one child (in the heavens).
From this it seems clear that the woman would also be a similar being, very possibly with Mary the woman as her heart, but would include all that follow the ways of Mary (as daughter of God) - this part borrows a lot from other faiths then Christianity to elevate Mary so much, but I believe there would have to be a female counterpart to Jesus.
Continuing one more time, just due to a recent discussion with a person about scriptures where I found something.
The woman in Rev 12, is going through birthing pains, this appears to relate to the ‘birth pains’ mentioned in Matthew and Mark at a time after Jesus birth.
[QUOTE=Matthew 24:8]
All these are the beginning of birth pains.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mark 13:8]
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
[/QUOTE]
If so the woman can not be Mary, and the child can not be Jesus (as the man). The woman giving birth and causing earthquakes does line up with Mother Earth.