I did a post on the subject of The Rapture of The Man-Child before. But my thinking has changed since then. First read this so you understand that all of this follows The Seventh Trumpet.
Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ. And that remains an important part of the argument. But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.
The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him. But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.
I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate. My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate. Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is. That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture. Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.
And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses. But John used it only here. Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.
I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne. Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room. Read chapters 14 and 15.
Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19. But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.
I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong. We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved. We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved. So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected. Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.
Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming. But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.
Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.
As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved. The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD. The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.
Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect. The Church is the same situation. We are definitely The Bride. And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times. They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine. Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we? Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ. That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself. Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.
There were no chapter divisions in the original text. Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead. I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah. The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.
Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of. Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.
And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here). It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.
As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo. While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical. Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo. I've posted on related conjectures before. However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.