I said yes they do to--- None of the passages you quoted ever call her “Mary of Bethany” or “Mary Magdalene.” The scriptures I gave you definitly describe Mary of Bethany.
You’ve asserted Lazarus’s sister is called Mary of Bethany, and earlier you also asserted she was Mary Magdalene. Describing someone and calling someone by a title are not the same thing. Scripture describes her as Lazarus’s sister, and calls her "Mary." It never calls her “Mary of Bethany,” and it never calls her “Mary Magdalene.” Those titles come from later tradition, not from Luke 10, John 11, or John 12. You said “Yes they do,” but none of the passages you quoted actually use either title:
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called
Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary.
Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”
Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table.
Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” ...
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of
Mary and her sister Martha. It was
Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Now Jesus loved
Martha and her sister and Lazarus. ...
I get it that you do not like that this anointment is not detailed and or it does not show up elsewhere in scripture ....I don't care if you do not like it, and I am not sure if John does either.
As I have said before, the scriptures are an abbreviated account of characters and events. The scriptures are not about what you like or dislike. Because you do not like them does not erase them. They are what they are and I am not going to add to them.
This isn’t about liking or disliking anything. It’s about the logic of your position. You've asserted John 11:2 is both:
- a non-specific anointing event with no details, and
- a third distinct anointing narrative with details
Those two claims contradict each other. A non‑specific event cannot function as a narrative, and it cannot identify Mary unless it refers to a known past event.
You also didn’t respond to the second question:
how can John 11:2 be a third distinct anointing narrative describing Jesus as present with them when Jesus is not present in John 11:1-3, and is told Lazarus is ill precisely because He is not there?
John uses the anointing to identify
which Mary Lazarus’s sister is. Identification requires a known, specific past action — not a vague, detail‑less event that points to nothing.
So the question still remains:
Which Gospel event is John referring to in John 11:2?
If you cannot name the event, then you are left with a position where John uses an
identifier that points to nothing — which would mean he didn’t know how to properly specify which Mary Lazarus’s sister is.
My position is stick with the scriptures. It says what it says.
Like I said before time for a new topic.
You are repeating yourself and I do not like repeating myself.
I do not mind conversing with you, just pick a different topic.
That’s fine if you want to move on, but the issue remains unresolved. You’ve asserted John 11:2 is both non‑specific and a distinct narrative, and you still haven’t named the event John is referring to. Without naming the event, your interpretation leaves John using an identifier that points to nothing. I’m simply following the text where it leads.
