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

[Soul.og]

Mary Magdalene was FROM the town of Magdala…

Mary sister of Martha and Lazarus was FROM The town of Bethany

From… original Place…

Toponymic names are often misunderstood. They do not refer exclusively to a person’s birthplace. In ancient Judaism, personal identifiers generally fell into three categories:

• Patronymic — identifying someone as the child of a parent
• Toponymic — linking a person to a place
• Descriptive titles — indicating occupation, traits, or religious roles

A toponymic identifier simply marks a place‑based association, and that association could reflect several different realities:

• the place someone originally came from
• the place where they currently lived
• the broader region or district with which they were connected

Scripture never states the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, and the title “Magdalene” or “of Magdala” does not automatically mean she was born there. It only indicates that she had some meaningful association with that town. Likewise, Scripture never calls the sister of Lazarus and Martha “Mary of Bethany” nor claims she was born there; it simply portrays her as residing in Bethany with her siblings.

Because the text does not specify birthplaces or claim that either woman lived exclusively in one location, it is entirely plausible that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany were the same individual—a woman formerly associated with Magdala who later lived in Bethany while still being known by her earlier toponymic identifier.

This kind of naming continuity was completely normal in the ancient world.

• Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was widely known as “Jesus of Nazareth.”
• Paul, born in Tarsus, continued to be called “Saul of Tarsus” long after relocating.

Therefore, the toponymic labels “Magdalene” and “of Bethany” do not prove these women were different individuals. They simply reflect the flexible, place‑based naming conventions of the period.

 

[Taken]

Toponymic names are often misunderstood. They do not refer only to a person’s place of origin. In ancient Judaism, personal identifiers generally fell into three categories:

· Patronymic — identifying someone as the child of a parent
· Toponymic — linking a person to a place
· Descriptive titles — indicating occupation, traits, or religious roles

A toponymic name in ancient Jewish usage is best understood as a place‑based identifier, and that connection could reflect several possibilities:

· The place someone originally came from
· The place where they currently lived
· The broader region or district with which they were associated

Scripture never identifies Mary Magdalene’s birthplace, and the title “Magdalene” (or “of Magdala”) indicates only an association with that town, not necessarily that she was born there. Likewise, Scripture never calls the sister of Lazarus and Martha “Mary of Bethany,” nor does it state she was born there; it simply portrays her as residing in Bethany with her siblings.

Because the text does not specify birthplaces or claim that either woman lived exclusively in one location, it is not impossible that Mary of Magdala and Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, were the same individual—someone formerly associated with Magdala who later lived in Bethany while still being known by her toponymic identifier. Such naming continuity was common in the ancient world. For example, Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was widely known as “Jesus of Nazareth", and Paul, born in Tarsus, continued to be called “Saul of Tarsus” long after relocating.

It is wise for a man with the ability to reason…to exercise that ability…without fluffy
words.

Origin…

John 8:
[21] Then said Jesus …

John 8:
[23] And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

 

[Soul.og]

Origin…

Here is what you wrote about it:

OF / FROM denotes ORIGIN.
ORIGIN denotes an individuals BIRTH, place.

Toponymic names are often misunderstood. They do not refer exclusively to a person’s birthplace. In ancient Judaism, personal identifiers generally fell into three categories:

• Patronymic — identifying someone as the child of a parent
• Toponymic — linking a person to a place
• Descriptive titles — indicating occupation, traits, or religious roles

A toponymic identifier simply marks a place‑based association, and that association could reflect several different realities:

• the place someone originally came from
• the place where they currently lived
• the broader region or district with which they were connected

Scripture never states the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, and the title “Magdalene” or “of Magdala” does not automatically mean she was born there. It only indicates that she had some meaningful association with that town. Likewise, Scripture never calls the sister of Lazarus and Martha “Mary of Bethany” nor claims she was born there; it simply portrays her as residing in Bethany with her siblings.

Because the text does not specify birthplaces or claim that either woman lived exclusively in one location, it is entirely plausible that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany were the same individual—a woman formerly associated with Magdala who later lived in Bethany while still being known by her earlier toponymic identifier.

This kind of naming continuity was completely normal in the ancient world.

• Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was widely known as “Jesus of Nazareth.”
• Paul, born in Tarsus, continued to be called “Saul of Tarsus” long after relocating.

Therefore, the toponymic labels “Magdalene” and “of Bethany” do not prove these women were different individuals. They simply reflect the flexible, place‑based naming conventions of the period.

 

[Taken]

…it is not impossible that Mary of Magdala and Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, were the same individual—.

Not probable, or reasonable, or likely.

The Highlight of the Gospels is Jesus.

The encounters and formed Relationships Jesus had with a multitude of Humans is A highlight.

Jesus had Noteworthy close Relationships with Humans having the Same Names…

The “noteworthy” Humans (with the same names) having a close Relationship with Jesus, are revealed with minimal …
identifiers.

Identifiers…of a person from this place, of that place, is this persons, son, brother, sister, mother, father, is faithful, is a betrayer, is a follower, is a believer, is a denier, is beloved, is chosen, is given tasks, is old, is poor, is lame, is sick, is healed, is forgiven, is doubtful, is giving, is a governing authority, blah, blah, blah….
And some Jesus himself gave Surnames!

Point is … Numerous INDIVIDUAL HUMANS …From High famed HUMAN authorities TO NOBODY paupers (several with the SAME NAMES) had FIRST HAND Contact WITH JESUS…
and the TAKEAWAY… BIG PICTURE
IS the ACTIONS of EACH Individual…that JESUS acknowledged WITH “PRAISE or CONTEMPT”

You want to spend your time debating people with the same names are the same person…
Your insignificant FREEWILL.

In the BIG PICTURE … end of HUMAN existence…all your effort spent on “names”, rather than on worthy DEEDS…is for naught.

The individuals with Worthy DEEDS, shall receive NEW NAMES….
And your efforts… are insignificant, boring and irrelevant.

 

[Soul.og]

Not probable, or reasonable, or likely.

The Highlight of the Gospels is Jesus.

The encounters and formed Relationships Jesus had with a multitude of Humans is A highlight.

Jesus had Noteworthy close Relationships with Humans having the Same Names…

The “noteworthy” Humans (with the same names) having a close Relationship with Jesus, are revealed with minimal …
identifiers.

Identifiers…of a person from this place, of that place, is this persons, son, brother, sister, mother, father, is faithful, is a betrayer, is a follower, is a believer, is a denier, is beloved, is chosen, is given tasks, is old, is poor, is lame, is sick, is healed, is forgiven, is doubtful, is giving, is a governing authority, blah, blah, blah….
And some Jesus himself gave Surnames!

Point is … Numerous INDIVIDUAL HUMANS …From High famed HUMAN authorities TO NOBODY paupers (several with the SAME NAMES) had FIRST HAND Contact WITH JESUS…
and the TAKEAWAY… BIG PICTURE
IS the ACTIONS of EACH Individual…that JESUS acknowledged WITH “PRAISE or CONTEMPT”

You want to spend your time debating people with the same names are the same person…
Your insignificant FREEWILL.

In the BIG PICTURE … end of HUMAN existence…all your effort spent on “names”, rather than on worthy DEEDS…is for naught.

The individuals with Worthy DEEDS, shall receive NEW NAMES….
And your efforts… are insignificant, boring and irrelevant.

Your reply doesn’t address anything I actually said. You replaced a historical argument with a moral rant and then declared the discussion irrelevant. That isn’t a rebuttal—it’s evasion. And evasion doesn’t refute evidence, nor does it make the historical data disappear.

 

[Taken]

Your reply doesn’t address anything I actually said.

Sure It does.
“Not probable, or reasonable, or likely.”
“And your efforts… are insignificant, boring and irrelevant.”

You replaced a historical argument with a moral rant…

Uh huh…
“The Highlight of the Gospels is Jesus.”

That isn’t a rebuttal — it’s evasion. And evasion doesn’t refute evidence, nor does it make the historical data disappear.

…it is not impossible that Mary of Magdala and Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, were the same individual—.

Your opinion of possibility is not evidence or reasonable or of any relevance.

I disagree with you and your lingering insignificant opinion.

 

[Soul.og]

Sure It does.
“Not probable, or reasonable, or likely.”
“And your efforts… are insignificant, boring and irrelevant.”



Uh huh…
“The Highlight of the Gospels is Jesus.”





Your opinion of possibility is not evidence or reasonable or of any relevance.

I disagree with you and your lingering insignificant opinion.

You’ve continued to argue as though Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles, but that assumption still hasn’t been demonstrated. When I asked you to identify where you addressed my rebuttal, you didn’t provide it. You’ve simply repeated the same assumption, so I’ve repeated the same response.

You also haven’t supported your additional claim that an action performed once cannot be performed again, nor have you explained why the specific gesture in Luke 7:37 could not have been repeated later by Mary of Bethany in a different context. Up to this point, your replies have consisted of assertions, not evidence.

 

[Taken]

You’re the one who assumed that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles. You also claimed to have answered my rebuttal to that assumption, yet when asked to cite the post number, you refused and left the discussion. Now you’ve returned only to repeat the same assumption—so I repeated my rebuttal.

Instead of addressing it, or supporting your additional claim that something done once cannot be done again, or explaining why the gesture performed by the unnamed woman in Lk. 7:37 could not have been performed again later by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, in a different context and for a different purpose, you’ve offered only assertions, evasions, and insults.

At this point, it’s clear you’re unable to support your position. Still, thank you for the exchange. I don’t present this as “defeat", but as an opportunity for you to reconsider your assumptions and examine the evidence I’ve laid out. If that leads you to a more accurate conclusion, that would be a genuine win.

From the get go… I disagreed with your assumption, you called evidence.

I know where I am FROM… Origin.
I know where my Citizenship is OF.
I know my historical CLAN…Descendant-ship
And Why.

I know where Jesus is FROM…Origin.
I know Where Jesus’ Earthly Citizenship was OF
I know Jesus’ lawful Earthly CLAN…Lawful Descendant-ship.
And Why.

I do not presume you know the same about yourself or why….and don’t believe your assumptions, you call evidence, is evidence or likely….and your continuance is irrelevant and a bore.

 

[Soul.og]

From the get go… I disagreed with your assumption, you called evidence.

You still don’t seem to understand the difference between an opinion, an assumption, and actual evidence.

I know where I am FROM… Origin.
I know where my Citizenship is OF.
I know my historical CLAN…Descendant-ship
And Why.

I know where Jesus is FROM…Origin.
I know Where Jesus’ Earthly Citizenship was OF
I know Jesus’ lawful Earthly CLAN…Lawful Descendant-ship.
And Why.

I do not presume you know the same about yourself or why….and don’t believe your assumptions, you call evidence, is evidence or likely….and your continuance is irrelevant and a bore.

You’ve argued as though Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles, but that assumption still hasn’t been demonstrated. When I asked you to point to where you addressed my rebuttal, you didn’t provide it. Now you’ve repeated the same assumption, so I’ve repeated the same response.

You also haven’t supported your additional claim that an action performed once cannot be performed again, nor explained why the specific gesture in Luke 7:37 could not have been repeated later by Mary of Bethany in a different context. So far, your replies have not consisted of evidence.

 

[Taken]

You still don’t seem to understand the difference between an opinion, an assumption, and actual evidence.



You’re the one who assumed that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles. You also claimed to have answered my rebuttal to that assumption, yet when asked to cite the post number, you refused and left the discussion. Now you’ve returned only to repeat the same assumption—so I repeated my rebuttal.

Instead of addressing it, or supporting your additional claim that something done once cannot be done again, or explaining why the gesture performed by the unnamed woman in Lk. 7:37 could not have been performed again later by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, in a different context and for a different purpose, you’ve offered only assertions, evasions, and insults.

At this point, it’s still clear you’re unable to support your position. Again, thank you for the exchange. I don’t present this as “defeat", but as an opportunity for you to reconsider your assumptions and examine the evidence I’ve laid out. If that leads you to a more accurate conclusion, that would be a genuine win.

I can neither reason or understand for you.
I have stated my position and why.
I disagree with you.
So what?

 

[Soul.og]

I can neither reason or understand for you.
I have stated my position and why.
I disagree with you.
So what?

What you have done is:

• Assumed— without substantiating it—that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles,
• Assumed—without substantiating it—that something done sufficiently once cannot be done again,
• Claimed to have already countered my rebuttals to those assumptions while refusing to cite the post numbers, and
• Declined to 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 points in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes.

In other words, you’ve stated disagreement, but you haven’t provided evidence.

 

[Taken]

I

What you have done is:

· assume—without substantiating it—that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles
· assume—without substantiating it—that something done sufficiently once cannot be done again
· claim to have already countered my rebuttals to the above in prior posts, but refuse to cite those post numbers
· refuse to explain why the distinctive gesture performed by the unnamed woman in Lk. 7:37—and later repeated by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus—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

At this point, it’s still clear you’re unable to support your position. Again, thank you for the exchange. I don’t present this as “defeat", but as an opportunity for you to reconsider your assumptions and examine the evidence I’ve laid out in the opening post. If that leads you to a more accurate conclusion, that would be a genuine win.

What I have done is:
Stated my belief and why.
Rejected your assumptions.
Rejected your claim of evidence.

If you think you have won something, collect your prize and move on.

 

[Soul.og]

What I have done is:
Stated my belief and why.
Rejected your assumptions.
Rejected your claim of evidence.

If you think you have won something, collect your prize and move on.

You still appear not to grasp the difference between an opinion, an assumption, and actual evidence, despite my having already explained all three. As for your position, here is what you have in fact done:

• Assumed—without substantiating it—that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany must have been born in those locations in order to bear those titles,
• Assumed—without substantiating it—that something done sufficiently once cannot be done again,
• Claimed to have already countered my rebuttals to those assumptions while refusing to cite the post numbers, and
• Declined to 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 points in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes.

Given all this, it’s clear that you have neither presented evidence for your claims nor engaged with the evidence presented against them. That is your prerogative, but it leaves your position unsupported.

In any case, thank you for the exchange. I don’t frame this as “defeat,” but as an invitation to reconsider your assumptions and examine the evidence more carefully. If that leads you to a clearer and more accurate understanding, that would be the real win.

 

[Taken]

First, you’ve shown in earlier posts that you

Gaslighter.
Yawn.
Bye.

 

[Soul.og]

Gaslighter.
Yawn.
Bye.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Since you continue to evade what is required of you in this sub-forum and resort to personal labels, it’s probably best we leave it here as I originally suggested. All the best with your research.

 

[Soul.og]

Yes [...]

You’re right that the evidence points toward the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany being the same individual.

So why don't you think this Mary (of Magdala) is the mother of Jesus Christ?

One of the reasons I can't say that Mary of Magdala was Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is because John distinguishes them as two separate individuals: "Standing near the cross of Jesus were His Mother, His Mother’s sister Mary, the wife of Clopas (Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25).

 

[amigo de christo]

Given the evidence I presented in the opening post, do you think it leans more toward identifying them as the same woman, or toward keeping them distinct?

It doesnt matter my friend . but one thing i do know
is that mary magadelene was NOT Mary the mother of Christ .
As far as whether or not Mary of bethany was or was not mary of magdalene i have no idea .
And in truth i suppose it matters not .
But here is what i KNOW matters . The teachings of JESUS , His words , later the apostels words in the letters
and all sound doctrine .
That i know matters , for if one
omits The sayings of Christ , oh dear that one built house on sinking sand . Not good .