Are the repentant woman (Luke 7), Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany the same person?

[Taken]

”your assumption”…
“Mary of Bethany” …
“You have not yet provided evidence that Bethany was her place of origin”…

“Additionally, it remains entirely plausible that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same individual”…

Your “assumption” you call “plausible” is not on your part “proof”…while you imply “I” have not evidence of “proof”. You have not provided “evidence” of proof.

Amid you continuing to Argue “without your own Proof”…
My Comment Post #10 still stands…

“You provided your Opinion.
I provided my Opinion.”

 

[Soul.og]

Your “assumption” you call “plausible” is not on your part “proof” [...] You have not provided “evidence” of proof.

I never assumed that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany were the same person, nor did I claim to have proven it. What I did was present specific evidence that reasonably points in that direction.

If you want to challenge that conclusion, you need to address the evidence itself—not attribute assumptions to me that I never made.

My Comment Post #10 still stands…

“You provided your Opinion.
I provided my Opinion.”

What I said in post #11 still applies: "An opinion is a personal judgment; evidence is verifiable information that supports or challenges a claim." I offered an informed argument that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany may be the same individual—and I supported that argument with specific evidence in the opening post.

Your counter‑claim, however—that these women must be distinct—rests not on evidence but on a single unexamined assumption:

• that Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala and Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany

You have not demonstrated this; you have simply assumed it. And unless that assumption is supported rather than presumed, it cannot function as a valid rebuttal to the evidence I presented.

In a debate, assumptions don’t overturn evidence. Evidence overturns assumptions.

[...] while you imply “I” have not evidence of “proof”.

I wasn’t implying you lack evidence; I was pointing out that you haven’t presented any—neither suggestive nor definitive. You may have it, but it hasn’t appeared in the discussion. If you do, now would be the time to bring it forward.

 

[Taken]

I never assumed that the woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala were the same person,

Sure you did. And based on your narrative are attempting to argue your narrative…. That: “One Mary Anointed Jesus TWICE”

No.

nor did I claim to have proven it; I presented specific evidence suggesting that conclusion.

Post #1

Mary of Bethany, both portray a woman who anoints Jesus and uses her hair in the act. This shared, highly specific gesture provides reasonable grounds for identifying them as the same person.

Furthermore, this Mary—who is described as anointing Jesus twice, including once in Nain near Magdala—and Mary of Magdala are both depicted as well‑known sinners

?

Given these overlapping details, it is likewise reasonable to conclude that these two women were one and the same.

Two women named Mary OF Different Places, AT Different Times Anointed Jesus ?
No.…

It is NOT reasonable One Woman would Anoint Jesus Twice, “AS IF” the First Anointing was not sufficient![/QUOTE]

 

[Soul.og]

Sure you did.

Presenting reasonable grounds—as I’ve done—is not the same as making a baseless assumption. It means offering evidence or justification for a conclusion, whether or not someone happens to agree with it.

It’s true that people often repeat personal gestures that are distinctive to them—habits, mannerisms, or ways of expressing emotion that are unmistakably characteristic. With that in mind, the fact that Mary repeats in Lazarus’s house the exact same highly specific gesture performed earlier by the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house—anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair—provides reasonable grounds for identifying them as the same individual. This is not a generic act; it is a uniquely intimate and symbolic gesture.

Furthermore, if the repentant woman—publicly known as a sinner who became a devoted follower of Jesus—and Mary of Bethany are indeed the same person, then her story closely parallels that of Mary of Magdala, who was delivered from “seven demons” and likewise became a devoted disciple. These overlapping narrative features strengthen the case that the texts are describing one woman, not three unrelated individuals who coincidentally share the same name and the same distinctive behaviors.

In short: the repetition of a unique gesture and the convergence of biographical details provide substantive grounds for identifying these Marys as the same individual.

It is NOT reasonable One Woman would Anoint Jesus Twice, “AS IF” the First Anointing was not sufficient!

What you’re objecting to isn’t actually my argument. I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice “as if the first wasn’t sufficient.” That’s a misrepresentation of what I said. My point is that the two accounts describe the same distinctive gesture, which provides reasonable grounds for identifying the women as the same individual. Critiquing a claim I never made doesn’t address the argument I actually presented.

So let’s deal with the real issue: Explain why the distinctive gesture performed by the repentant woman in Luke 7:37—and later repeated by Mary of Bethany—could not have been carried out by the same woman at different moments in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes.

[...] while you imply “I” have not evidence of “proof”.

I wasn’t implying you lack evidence; I was pointing out that you haven’t presented any—neither suggestive nor definitive. You may have it, but it hasn’t appeared in the discussion. If you do, now would be the time to bring it forward.

 

[Wick Stick]

However, one must bear in mind that Mary was by far the commonest girl's name in Palestine during the New Testament period - no fewer than 25% of women were called Mary!
So statistically, we would expect a lot of different Marys to be mentioned in the New Testament, and it's highly unlikely that they were all actually the sane woman.

Mary is common, but Magdala is not.

The original post postulates that Magdala refers to her city of origin. But "Magdala' is ambiguous. It could refer to her city of origin, but it could just be ordinary Hebrew. GDaL just means "great" in Hebrew. M-GDL is "of the great."

I've seem more Biblical scholars of the opinion that this "Mary" was from a Noble family, than that she was from "Magdala."

 

[Taken]

Presenting reasonable grounds—


I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice.

Post #1

Furthermore, this Mary—who is described as anointing Jesus twice, including once in Nain near Magdala—

My point is that the two accounts describe the same distinctive gesture, which provides a reasonable basis for identifying the women as the same person.

My Point…
I disagree with you.
I do not Believe Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany are the same Person.

what evidence—suggestive or definitive—supports your assumption that Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany and Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala?

Already stated….My Opinion….
Mary OF Magdala was ORIGINALLY OF / FROM Magdala.

Already stated…My Opinion…
Mary OF Bethany was ORIGINALLY OF / FROM Bethany.

Already stated… FROM / OF is indicative of ORIGIN.

Personally I Know… the meaning … my own (OF / FROM) ORIGIN… Country, State, City, Citizenship, Father, Mother.

I heard, trust, Believe Jesus Revealed His Own ORIGIN (FROM / OF) His Father God, His Fathers Kingdom / Heaven, His Unique Oneness From, Of, With, IN, His Father God.

I believe Mary OF Bethany, IS that Mary’s ORIGIN of geographical Place.

I believe The Mary called Magdalena, ORIGIN of Geographical Place was Magdala.

I believe Jesus was a Hot Topic (being Feared and Exalted) among the Jews and Gentiles.

I believe the religious high positioned Jews wanted Jesus out of the Picture (fearing His Influence over Jews).

I believe the Gentiles (under Roman Rulership), felt no Threat from Jesus.

I believe Some Jews AND Gentiles were in Awe of Jesus, His Words, His Works.

I believe every human is naturally Born IN Sin.
I believe humans decide degrees of SIN for Others, while ignoring their Own SIN.

I believe Mary (and John, and Simon, and Judas, and Joseph… and others were popular names, for multiple individual persons)

I believe “Different Persons” with the “same” Names… have “Identifiers” such as, OF / FROM…geographical locations, relationships exclusively to others, etc. to Reveal their difference from another having the “same name”.

Joseph OF Arimathea…
Is NOT Joseph, Jesus’ earthly Legal Father.
Is NOT Joseph, son of Jacob.

My Opinion… Based on Common understanding….AND….Scriptural “identifiers”… OF / FROM…
Mary Magdalena and Mary OF Bethany are Two distinct DIFFERENT persons with the same Name (Mary).

If you Do or Do Not, believe they are Different Persons…
THAT ^ is completely irrelevant, and has No baring on WHAT and WHY I Believe as I do.

I believe EACH, distinct Mary, loved Jesus, (and had ability to HEAR the Buzz… Talk About Jesus of men wanting Jesus KILLED)…
And Each Mary “according TO their own Opportunity” to BE in Jesus’ Location, “Prepared”… a concoction of specific ”death and honor anointing OIL”, (myrrh, cinnamon, cane, cassia, olive) per specific measurements…AND took advantage “OF Jesus’ Location”… to offer their prepared Anointing Oil Upon Jesus, For their acknowledgement OF their Honor Unto Jesus.

Gathering, pressing, preparing exact ingredients and measurements of Anointing Oil was a Works of Tedious Effort… BY each Individual Mary…to Honor the Jesus they each Loved… and Each had Opportunity, and took advantage of their Opportunity, to bestow their OIL upon Jesus.

While bystanders… criticized Jesus for Allowing (a Sinner) to preform such a Gesture…
To THAT point… all humans are born Sinners…and Thus No Human “would be supposedly”… qualified to “Anoint Jesus”…

The criticizers…hanging on a dilemma…
Did “they” Believe Jesus was the Son of God?
If not, what would it matter, WHO anointed Him?

You have your Opinion….based on…I don’t know.
I have my Opinion… based on Common Knowledge and Scriptural identifiers.

One thing established…We do not Agree.
And that is Okay with me.

 

[Soul.og]

The original post postulates that Magdala refers to her city of origin.

Whose original post?

But "Magdala' is ambiguous. It could refer to her city of origin, but it could just be ordinary Hebrew. GDaL just means "great" in Hebrew. M-GDL is "of the great."

Magdala gets confused with gadol (“great”) because the two words look similar in consonant form, but they come from different Semitic roots with different meanings and histories. The overlap is visual, not linguistic.

Different Roots, Different Meanings​

· M‑G‑D‑L → migdal = “tower”
· G‑D‑L → gadol = “great, large”

The overlap (G‑D‑L) is visual only. In migdal, the M‑ prefix forms a noun meaning “place/structure of…”. In gadol, the G‑D‑L root itself means “to grow, to become great.”

So:

· M‑G‑D‑L → structure that rises → “tower”
· G‑D‑L → greatness, largeness

Why People Mistake Magdala for “the great”​

1. Shared consonants make M‑G‑D‑L look like “from the great,” but the M‑ is not a preposition.
2. Mary Magdalene’s name looks like a title (“Mary the Great”), but it simply means “Mary from Magdala.”
3. Early Christian symbolism used “tower” metaphorically (tower of faith/strength), which some later readers misinterpreted as a literal meaning.

​

How the Roots Are Related​

Both roots involve the idea of height or growth, but they diverge in meaning:

· G‑D‑L → growth, greatness
· M‑G‑D‑L → a structure that rises → tower

They are connected etymologically but not semantically identical.

Evolution of Mary Magdalene’s Name​

Across languages, her name consistently means “Mary of Magdala”:

· Aramaic: Mariam Magdalaitha
· Hebrew: Miryam ha‑Magdalit
· Greek: Maria hē Magdalēnē
· Latin: Maria Magdalena
· English: Mary Magdalene

Never “Mary the Great".

 

[Soul.og]

I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice.

Post #1

I didn’t say I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice. I said I never claimed she did so “as if the first wasn’t sufficient.” By omitting that qualification, you’ve misrepresented my actual position.

Already stated….My Opinion….
Mary OF Magdala was ORIGINALLY OF / FROM Magdala.

Already stated…My Opinion…
Mary OF Bethany was ORIGINALLY OF / FROM Bethany.

Already stated… FROM / OF is indicative of ORIGIN.

You’ve already acknowledged that toponymic identifiers can indicate a person’s place of origin, and I’ve already explained why they do not necessarily refer only to birthplace. Your argument still lacks evidence—suggestive or definitive—about the actual origins of these women. You’re relying on an unproven assumption that toponyms like “of Magdala” or “of Bethany” must denote birthplace rather than residence or association.

 

[Wick Stick]

Magdala gets confused with gadol (“great”) because the two words look similar in consonant form, but they come from different Semitic roots with different meanings and histories. The overlap is visual, not linguistic.

Different Roots, Different Meanings​

· M‑G‑D‑L → migdal = “tower”
· G‑D‑L → gadol = “great, large”
The overlap (G‑D‑L) is visual only. In migdal, the M‑ prefix forms a noun meaning “place/structure of…”. In gadol, the G‑D‑L root itself means “to grow, to become great.”

So:

· M‑G‑D‑L → structure that rises → “tower”
· G‑D‑L → greatness, largeness

​

Why People Mistake Magdala for “the great”​

I. Shared consonants make M‑G‑D‑L look like “from the great,” but the M‑ is not a preposition.
II. Mary Magdalene’s name looks like a title (“Mary the Great”), but it simply means “Mary from Magdala.”
III. Early Christian symbolism used “tower” metaphorically (tower of faith/strength), which some later readers misinterpreted as a literal meaning.

​

How the Roots Are Related​

Both roots involve the idea of height or growth, but they diverge in meaning:

· G‑D‑L → growth, greatness
· M‑G‑D‑L → a structure that rises → tower

They are connected etymologically but not semantically identical.

​

Evolution of Mary Magdalene’s Name​

Across languages, her name consistently means “Mary of Magdala”:

· Aramaic: Mariam Magdalaitha
· Hebrew: Miryam ha‑Magdalit
· Greek: Maria hē Magdalēnē
· Latin: Maria Magdalena
· English: Mary Magdalene

Never “Mary the Great.”

Is this an AI-generated response? It offers a lot of extraneous information that is tangential at best. That and the formatting usually indicate a copy-pasta job relying on AI.

Magdala gets confused with gadol (“great”) because the two words look similar in consonant form, but they come from different Semitic roots with different meanings and histories. The overlap is visual, not linguistic.

Word salad!

No, they don't come from different root words. They come from the same one... even the rest of your (or ChatGPT's) post says so!

She could have been from Magdala. But it's really quite ambiguous. You need to be okay with not having a firm answer to this... because a firm answer to the question doesn't exist.

 

[Soul.og]

Is this an AI-generated response?

That one was. I'm getting ready for work, don't have time to formulate a response in my own words, and wanted to submit a quick reply.

No, they don't come from different root words. They come from the same one...

The two forms come from the same Semitic root (גדל), but they belong to different morphological patterns that produce distinct meanings:

• מִגְדָּל (migdal) — “tower,” a noun formed with the mi‑ pattern that often denotes a place, structure, or instrument associated with the root action
• גָּדוֹל (gadol) — “great, large", an adjective built directly from the root

The shared consonantal sequence G‑D‑L is not accidental: it reflects their common origin. What differs is how the root is shaped into words. In migdal, the mi‑ pattern yields a concrete object (“a thing that is elevated”), while in gadol the root itself expresses the abstract quality of greatness or largeness.

Both meanings relate to the core idea of growth or elevation, but they diverge semantically:

• מִגְדָּל → something that rises → tower
• גָּדוֹל → the state of being large or great → great, large

They are historically related but functionally distinct and not interchangeable.

She could have been from Magdala. But it's really quite ambiguous. You need to be okay with not having a firm answer to this... because a firm answer to the question doesn't exist.

I have not argued that Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala. I'm arguing that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany were the same individual, and I presented specific evidence to suggest that conclusion in the opening post.

 

[Wick Stick]

Again, the two forms derive from different Semitic roots with distinct meanings and histories:

· M‑G‑D‑L → migdal — “tower”
· G‑D‑L → gadol — “great, large”

The shared sequence (G‑D‑L) is only a visual overlap. In migdal, the M‑ prefix creates a noun meaning “place/structure of…,” whereas in gadol the G‑D‑L root itself carries the sense of “to grow, to become great.”

Both roots involve the idea of height or growth, but they develop in different semantic directions:

· M‑G‑D‑L → something that rises → tower
· G‑D‑L → growth, magnitude → great, large

They are historically related but not semantically interchangeable.

More self-contradicting word salad from the AI. Do you even try to understand what it says before you copy-paste it here?

Yes, MGDL (tower) comes from the root GDL (great). Ipso facto, any word that comes from MGDL ALSO has GDL as its etymological root. That is not just "visual" (which is not a term used in language studies btw).

But that is not the only possibility. There is also the possibility that the root here is just GDL, and a M is being prefixed to fix location - as a preposition (in English-speaking terms). Hebrew prefixes M to mean "in, at, from."

I have not argued that Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala. I'm arguing that the woman in Lk. 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala were the same person, and I presented specific evidence to suggest that conclusion in the opening post.

I'm not sure you've argued anything, so much as you've copy-pasted your way through this. I think I shall retire from this thread. Arguing with an AI whose data set contains a bunch of misinformation isn't my idea of a good time.

Bye

 

[Taken]

I didn’t say, “I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice.” What I actually said was, “I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice as if the first wasn’t sufficient". Your wording misrepresents my statement.

I quoted what you said…

I quoted What I said…
What I said … AS IF… was my words in response to your words…

You indicate a possibility the same woman named Mary anointed Jesus TWICE.

I believe any ONE person anointing Jesus ONCE would be sufficient…. Same as I believe A man receiving Salvation ONCE is sufficient.

To argue otherwise, by default implies ONCE is Not Sufficient.

 

[Soul.og]

More self-contradicting word salad from the AI. Do you even try to understand what it says before you copy-paste it here?

Like I said, I'm getting ready for work, so I don't have time to do a thorough review of the information formulated by AI, but when I do I will.

[Update: I've reviewed and made corrections in post #30.]

Yes, MGDL (tower) comes from the root GDL (great). Ipso facto, any word that comes from MGDL ALSO has GDL as its etymological root. That is not just "visual" (which is not a term used in language studies btw).

But that is not the only possibility. There is also the possibility that the root here is just GDL, and a M is being prefixed to fix location - as a preposition (in English-speaking terms). Hebrew prefixes M to mean "in, at, from."

First, the word Migdal, the "M" is not a preposition (like "from" or "in"); it is a morphological preformative. While the Hebrew preposition min ("from") does appear as a prefixed mem, that is a separate grammatical function from the one used to build the noun Migdal from the root GDL.

Second, the prefix for "in" or "at" in Hebrew is B (Be-), not M. The prefix M (Mi-) primarily means "from" or "than" when functioning as a preposition.

Third, "visual language" and "visual linguistics" are established fields of study that examine communication through non-verbal signs, symbols, and written structures.

I'm not sure you've argued anything [...]

You would know what I'm arguing if you read the opening post.

 

[Wick Stick]

You would know what I'm arguing if you read the opening post.

I read it. I actually agreed with the conclusion that they are the same woman... until I read the arguments you used to get there.

You're doing a bang-up job of talking me out of it, tbh

 

[Soul.og]

I read it.

Then you are aware that I've argued something.

I actually agreed with the conclusion that they are the same woman...

What led you to that conclusion?

 

[Soul.og]

I quoted what you said…

I quoted What I said…
What I said … AS IF… was my words in response to your words…

These are our words that you're referring to:

It’s true that people often repeat personal gestures that are distinctive to them—habits, mannerisms, or ways of expressing emotion that are unmistakably characteristic. With that in mind, the fact that Mary repeats in Lazarus’s house the exact same highly specific gesture performed earlier by the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house—anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair—provides reasonable grounds for identifying them as the same individual. This is not a generic act; it is a uniquely intimate and symbolic gesture.

Furthermore, if the repentant woman—publicly known as a sinner who became a devoted follower of Jesus—and Mary of Bethany are indeed the same person, then her story closely parallels that of Mary of Magdala, who was delivered from “seven demons” and likewise became a devoted disciple. These overlapping narrative features strengthen the case that the texts are describing one woman, not three unrelated individuals who coincidentally share the same name and the same distinctive behaviors.

In short: the repetition of a unique gesture and the convergence of biographical details provide substantive grounds for identifying these Marys as the same individual.

It is NOT reasonable One Woman would Anoint Jesus Twice, “AS IF” the First Anointing was not sufficient!

What you’re objecting to isn’t actually my argument. I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice “as if the first wasn’t sufficient.” That’s a misrepresentation of what I said. My point is that the two accounts describe the same distinctive gesture, which provides reasonable grounds for identifying the women as the same individual. Critiquing a claim I never made doesn’t address the argument I actually presented.

So let’s deal with the real issue: Explain why the distinctive gesture performed by the repentant woman in Luke 7:37—and later repeated by Mary of Bethany—could not have been carried out by the same woman at different moments in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes.

I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice.

Post #1

Furthermore, this Mary—who is described as anointing Jesus twice, including once in Nain near Magdala—

You quoted only the first clause of my sentence—“I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice”—and cut it off from the rest of what I wrote. By inserting a period there and omitting the remainder of the sentence, along with the sentences that followed, you altered the meaning of my words. That selective quotation made it appear as though I had made a claim I never made. You then responded to that misrepresentation and attempted to “refute” it by citing an excerpt pulled from a larger passage in my opening post.

Please avoid doing that going forward.

You indicate a possibility the same woman named Mary anointed Jesus TWICE.

I believe any ONE person anointing Jesus ONCE would be sufficient…. Same as I believe A man receiving Salvation ONCE is sufficient.

To argue otherwise, by default implies ONCE is Not Sufficient.

You’re assuming that because an act is sufficient once, it therefore cannot occur again. But sufficiency does not imply exclusivity—not in Scripture and not in ordinary reasoning.

Everyday examples make this obvious:

• One prayer may be “sufficient,” yet people pray continually.
• One act of worship may be “sufficient,” yet worship is repeated.
• One expression of love may be “sufficient,” yet love is expressed again and again.

And Scripture reflects the same pattern:

• Jesus is anointed twice, and He accepts both acts without any suggestion of redundancy.
• Each anointing carries its own meaning and context; neither is portrayed as a failed or unnecessary repetition.
• None of the Gospel writers treat the events as conflicting or problematic.

The text gives no indication that Jesus was meant to be anointed only once, nor that a second anointing would imply inadequacy in the first. Instead, the accounts present two distinct events—occurring at different times, in different settings, and for different purposes—whether performed by two women or by the same woman at different points in her life.

And you still haven’t explained why the distinctive gesture performed by the repentant woman in Luke 7:37—later echoed by Mary of Bethany—could not have been carried out by the same woman on two separate occasions, in two different contexts, for two different reasons.

 

[Taken]

These are our words that you're referring to:







Instead of answering my question, you quoted only the first clause of my sentence—"I never claimed she anointed Jesus twice"—and cut it off from the rest of what I wrote. By inserting a period there and omitting the remaining part of the sentence, along with the sentences that followed, you changed the meaning of my words. This selective quotation made it appear as though I had made a claim I never made. You then responded to that misrepresentation and "refuted" it by citing an excerpt taken from a larger passage in my opening post. See below.



Please don't do that again.



You’re assuming that if something is sufficient once, it must never happen again. But sufficiency doesn’t work that way—neither in Scripture nor in ordinary reasoning.

Examples:

· One prayer is “sufficient”, yet people pray many times
· One act of worship is “sufficient”, yet people worship repeatedly
· One expression of love is “sufficient”, yet people express love often

In Scripture:

· Jesus is anointed twice, and He accepts each one
· Each anointing has its own meaning, not a repeated attempt to accomplish the same task
· None of the Gospel writers treat the events as redundant or problematic

The text gives no indication that Jesus was meant to be anointed only once, nor does it suggest that multiple anointings imply any inadequacy in the first. Instead, the accounts show that Jesus was anointed on two distinct occasions—at different times, in different settings, and for different purposes—whether by two separate individuals or by the same person.

Bored with quoting you.
Read your own quotes…

You claimed Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalena are the same Mary.

You claimed “That one” “same Mary” anointed Jesus Twice.

Your evidential proof is your “personal reasoning Opinion.”

I disagree with you.
And am bored with your circular nonsense.

 

[Soul.og]

Bored with quoting you.

Yeah—why would you want to keep discussing anything with me right after I showed how you quoted then manipulated one of my posts?

And am bored with your circular nonsense.

What good does that baseless assertion do?

You claimed Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalena are the same Mary.

You claimed “That one” “same Mary” anointed Jesus Twice.

Your evidential proof is your “personal reasoning Opinion.”

I’m arguing—offering my informed opinion—that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany were the same individual. I’ve never claimed to have proven this; I presented specific textual and contextual evidence in my opening post to support that conclusion.

I disagree with you.

That much is already clear. What you haven’t provided is any evidence—suggestive or definitive—to support the following assumptions:

• that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany must have been born in those respective locations in order to bear those designations, and
• that because an act is sufficient once, it therefore cannot occur again.

You also haven’t addressed why the distinctive gesture performed by the repentant woman in Luke 7:37—later echoed by Mary of Bethany—could not have been carried out by the same woman at different points in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes.

 

[amigo de christo]

I. The well‑known sinful yet repentant woman encountered in Simon the Pharisee’s house in Nain

“A woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. Standing behind weeping, she began to wet Jesus’s feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment” (Lk. 7:36-50). [Note: Magdala was located not far from Nain. See image below.]

View attachment 80298

__________________________________________

II. Mary, the woman encountered in the house of Lazarus in Bethany

"Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister, Martha. It was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother, Lazarus, was sick" (Jn. 11:1-2).

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him having an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. ‘Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of as a memorial of her’” (Matt. 26:6-13).

"While He was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard—very costly. She broke the jar, and poured it over His head. ‘Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News may be preached throughout the whole world, that which this woman has done will also be spoken of for a memorial of her’” (Mk. 14:3-9).

“Then six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, who had been dead, whom He raised from the dead. So they made Him a supper there. Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. Therefore Mary took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed Jesus’s feet and wiped His feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment” (Jn. 12:1-8).

__________________________________________

III. Mary of Magdala

· Healed of Seven Demons by Jesus (Lk. 8:1-2)

· Financially supported Jesus’s ministry (Lk. 8:2-3)

· Present at Jesus’s Crucifixion (Matt. 27:55-56;Mk. 15:40-41;Jn. 19:25)

· Present at Jesus’s Burial (Matt. 27:59-61;Mk. 15:46-47)

· Prepared to anoint Jesus’s lifeless Body (Matt. 28:1;Mk. 16:1;Lk. 24:1;Jn. 20:1)

· First witness (or second if you believe His Mother was the first) of Jesus’s Resurrection, and first disciple to announce it (Mk. 16:9-11;Jn. 20:14-18)

__________________________________________

Summary

In Simon the Pharisee’s house in Nain, a woman who had been a well-known sinner, came to Jesus having brought with her an alabaster jar filled with ointment, already feeling repentant for her many sins, and weeping she accused herself, humiliating herself in a humble public confession represented by her tears. Using her hair, she wiped the tears, as well as the ointment, onto Jesus’s feet, thus consecrating herself as a disciple of His. In return, Jesus said to her that she was forgiven and saved, because she loved much (Lk. 7:36-50).

In Lazarus's house in Bethany, he and Martha’s sister, Mary, displayed the same personal gesture as the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house, though it was not humiliated so much, and it was more confidential in its reverent adoration. She came to Jesus having brought with her an alabaster jar filled with ointment, which she had kept for Him, and poured the ointment onto His head and feet, without shedding any tears, and wiped it on Him using her hair. She felt that Jesus was about to die, and she wanted to anticipate the burial anointing for His body. In return, Jesus memorialized the gesture she made to Him (Matt. 26:6-13;Mk. 14:3-9;Jn. 12:1-8).

It isn’t unusual for someone to repeat a distinctive personal gesture in different situations or with different emotions behind it. People often have characteristic mannerisms—ways of acting that are uniquely their own. With that in mind, the accounts describing woman in Lk. 7:37, and Mary of Bethany, both portray a woman who anoints Jesus and uses her hair in the act. This shared, distinct gesture provides reasonable grounds for identifying them as the same person.

Furthermore, this Mary—who is described as anointing Jesus twice, including once in Nain near Magdala—and Mary of Magdala are both depicted as well‑known sinners who repented and became devoted followers of Jesus. Given these overlapping details, it is likewise reasonable to conclude that these two women were one and the same.

Reason for edit: rewording, punctuation modification.

very good , i was ab out to tell you dont foget they REPENTED . but i kept reading and seen you wrote that .
Well known sinners , who repented . Now show me one grown man and woman who aint a sinner .
Exactly . Now a friendly reminder .
What is the difference between a true follower of Christ
and one CINO . christain in name only . A hint , THE TRUE FOLLOWER of CHRIST is A REPENANT
The lip only UNREPENTANT and still justyfing his or her sin . So watch out cause isee lots of rainb ows in churches .
Lots of koran and b udda setatues geteting kissed too .
And boy and boy i see the LOVE OF THAT MONEY over a whole heap of them as well .
SOUNDs to me . CINO , wolves in wool . but i was once just like them too . T HANK GOD
HE pulled me out of that mess and changed my heart . We sure do owe Him all . Hope that encourages you .

 

[amigo de christo]

I never assumed that the woman in Lk. 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala were the same person, nor did I claim to have proven it; I presented specific evidence suggesting that conclusion.



My earlier reply (post #11) still applies: “Offering an opinion means expressing a personal interpretation or judgment; providing evidence means presenting verifiable information—facts, data, or concrete reasons—that support or challenge an argument.” I’m arguing—offering my informed opinion—that the woman in Lk. 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala were the same person, and I presented specific evidence to suggest that conclusion in the opening post.

Your counter‑argument—that these women must be distinct—rests not on evidence but on an unexamined assumption: that Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany and Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala. Unless that assumption is demonstrated rather than presumed, it cannot function as a valid rebuttal to evidence.



I wasn’t suggesting you lack evidence; I was pointing out that you haven’t presented any yet—whether suggestive or definitive. You may well have it, but it hasn’t been shared. Do you have any to offer?

Reason for edit: rewording, typeface modification.

it could be the same woman . probably was . but maybe not .
All i know is , JESUS is not the ministir of sin .
SO he dont hold rainbows , hundred dollah b ills yall , and preach unbelief to the false religoins and claim we all serve the same GOD .
Cause JESUS dont lie .
So if you dont mind i feel the need to warn us of something .
IF you know of any man , any woman or even children that are inside an ecumeinc al church .
GET THEM Out now . we are all b eing decei ved and led to a lie that sounds like its loving and love , BUT IT AINT
ITS A LIE . and it will not save them . ONLY JESUS sa ves . AND TO b e saved ONE MUST BELEIVE ON HIM . muhammed aint
saving squat nor budda , nor athiest . NO man , no woman IS GOOD .
ONLY GOD IS GOOD . AND all NEED CHRIST JESUS . so lets always Point to HIM . and do remember HE is not the minstir of any sin either .