The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?

[Grailhunter]

You've asserted John 11:2 is both:

• a non-specific anointing event with no details, and
• a third distinct anointing narrative with details

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.

 

[Grailhunter]

I didn’t say John claims it points to nothing. I said your position results in an identifier that points to nothing if you cannot name the event. John uses the anointing to identify which Mary Lazarus’s sister is. Identification requires a known, specific past action. If you cannot name the event John is referring to, then your interpretation leaves John pointing to an event that doesn’t exist — which would mean the identifier fails. That’s the problem you still haven’t addressed.

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.

 

[Moonwood]

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:

Luke 10:38-42​

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.”

John 12:1-8​

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?” ...

John 11:1-​

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.

 

[Grailhunter]

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:

The scriptures we have discussed about Lazarus make it clear that the characters we are discussing are Lazurus and his sisters Martha and Mary and they are in their home in Bethany. So Mary of Bethany is her.
As far as if Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene.....I have are ready said several times that that is my opinion, not supported by scripture. And we have discussed this all enough.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

I am not contradicting myself and the scriptures do not contradiction. The simply say that Mary anointed Yeshua and do not give the details. What else is there to say about it, it is real but does not give any details. Because it does not give details does not mean it did not happen. Again the scriptures are an abbreviated account of characters and events. It is what it is. And we have discussed this enough....my answers are not going to change and no need to repeat everything again.

 

[Grailhunter]

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?

More or less John 11:2 is more a less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline, just a previous event.
Again, no need to discuss this again.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

point to nothing? Are you disqualifying a scripture? It points to a previous anointing. Do not need to discuss this further.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Completely resolved for me.

 

[Moonwood]

The scriptures we have discussed about Lazarus make it clear that the characters we are discussing are Lazurus and his sisters Martha and Mary and they are in their home in Bethany. So Mary of Bethany is her.
As far as if Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene.....I have are ready said several times that that is my opinion, not supported by scripture.

Being in Bethany is not the same as being called “Mary of Bethany.” Scripture describes her as Lazarus’s sister and calls her “Mary.” It never uses the title “Mary of Bethany,” just as it never uses the title “Mary Magdalene” for her. Those titles come from later tradition, not from Luke 10, John 11, or John 12.

You’ve said your belief that Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene is your opinion and not supported by Scripture — and I agree with you there. My only point is that Scripture itself never uses either title.

I just wanted to clarify the textual distinction between descriptions and later titles.

I am not contradicting myself and the scriptures do not contradiction. The simply say that Mary anointed Yeshua and do not give the details. What else is there to say about it, it is real but does not give any details. Because it does not give details does not mean it did not happen. Again the scriptures are an abbreviated account of characters and events. It is what it is.

You’ve said John 11:2 is a non‑specific anointing event with no details, and also a third distinct anointing narrative with details. Those two claims cannot both be true. A non‑specific event cannot function as a narrative, and it cannot identify Mary unless it refers to a known past event.

John uses the anointing to identify which Mary Lazarus’s sister is. Identification requires a specific, recognizable past action. If you cannot name the event John is referring to, then your interpretation leaves John pointing to an event that doesn’t exist — which means the identifier fails.

More or less John 11:2 is a note to identify Mary, not a timeline, just a previous event.

You’ve now taken multiple mutually‑exclusive positions about John 11:2, and each new claim contradicts one or more of your earlier ones. Here is the sequence of what you’ve said:

1. You first acknowledged there are only two anointing narratives in the Gospels: Luke 7 and John 12.
That means there is no third anointing narrative anywhere in Scripture. Yet later you said you “stick to what Scripture says” while simultaneously inventing a third anointing narrative not found in Scripture.

2. Then you said John 11:2 does not refer to one of those two events — specifically not Luke 7.
But if John 11:2 does not refer to Luke 7, and John 12 hasn’t happened yet, then John is pointing to an event that does not exist. This contradicts your claim that you “stick to the storyline,” because the storyline contains only one earlier hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

3. Then you said John 11:2 is “just a previous event.”
But that contradicts your earlier claims that John 11:2 "does not imply a previous event" and does not refer to Luke 7. It also contradicts your statement that you "stick to what Scripture says," because Scripture records only one previous hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

4. Then you said John 11:2 is a “non‑specific event” that gives “no details.”
A non‑specific event cannot be a previous event, because a previous event must be specific enough to be recognized. And a non‑specific event cannot identify Mary, because identification requires a known, recognizable past action. This also contradicts your claim that John 11:2 does not refer to either of the only two anointings recorded in Scripture: Luke 7 and John 12 — because if it is non‑specific and refers to neither of them, then it refers to nothing at all, which makes identification impossible.

5. Then you said John 11:2 is a “third distinct anointing narrative,” and you added details not found in Scripture.
But a distinct narrative requires details, setting, timeline, and Jesus present — all of which contradict your claim that John 11:2 is non‑specific and gives no details. And claiming a third narrative contradicts your original statement that there are only two anointings. It also contradicts your later claim: "I never said 'third anointing narrative.'" You did — you affirmed it directly when asked, and only after adding details to John 11:2 that are not in Scripture in order to turn that single identifying note into a third anointing narrative.

6. Then you went back to saying John 11:2 is non‑specific.
Which contradicts your claim that it is a distinct narrative, and contradicts your claim that it is a previous event.

7. And now you are again saying it is a previous event, but this time adding “not a timeline, rather more or less a note to identify Mary.”
But calling it “a note to identify Mary” means you are now treating John 11:2 as an identifier — which requires a specific, known past event that the reader can recognize. That directly contradicts your earlier claim that John 11:2 is a non‑specific event with no details, because a non‑specific event cannot identify anyone. It also contradicts your earlier statement that “these scriptures do not imply a previous event,” because an identifier is a reference to a previous event. And it contradicts your claim that John 11:2 is a third distinct anointing narrative, because an identifier is not a narrative and does not describe a new event happening in John 11. Finally, it contradicts your statement “John knows how to identify someone,” because your interpretation leaves John identifying Mary by pointing to an event you cannot name.

So at this point you have claimed all of the following:

• only two anointings exist
• John 11:2 does not refer to either of them
• John 11:2 is a previous event
• John 11:2 is not a previous event
• John 11:2 is non‑specific
• John 11:2 is a distinct narrative
• John 11:2 gives no details
• John 11:2 has details (that you supplied)
• John 11:2 is not a timeline
• John 11:2 is a previous timeline event
• John 11:2 identifies Mary
• John 11:2 does not identify a previous event
• Scripture does not imply a previous event
• John 11:2 is a previous event and an identifier
• “I stick to what Scripture says”
• “I stick to the storyline”
• “John knows how to identify someone”
• “I never said ‘third anointing narrative’”

These claims cannot all be true. Many of them cannot coexist with any of the others.

John 11:2 identifies and specifies which Mary Lazarus’s sister is by referring to a past hair‑wiping event. John 12 has not happened yet. The Gospels contain only one earlier hair‑wiping event: Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier event. The Gospels give no alternative earlier event.

So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

 

[Grailhunter]

Being in Bethany is not the same as being called “Mary of Bethany.” Scripture describes her as Lazarus’s sister and calls her “Mary.” It never uses the title “Mary of Bethany,” just as it never uses the title “Mary Magdalene” for her. Those titles come from later tradition, not from Luke 10, John 11, or John 12.

You’ve said your belief that Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene is your opinion and not supported by Scripture — and I agree with you there. My only point is that Scripture itself never uses either title.

I just wanted to clarify the textual distinction between descriptions and later titles.



You’ve said John 11:2 is a non‑specific anointing event with no details, and also a third distinct anointing narrative with details. Those two claims cannot both be true. A non‑specific event cannot function as a narrative, and it cannot identify Mary unless it refers to a known past event.

John uses the anointing to identify which Mary Lazarus’s sister is. Identification requires a specific, recognizable past action. If you cannot name the event John is referring to, then your interpretation leaves John pointing to an event that doesn’t exist — which means the identifier fails.



You’ve now taken multiple mutually‑exclusive positions about John 11:2, and each new claim contradicts one or more of your earlier ones. Here is the sequence of what you’ve said:

1. You first acknowledged there are only two anointing narratives in the Gospels.
That means there is no third anointing narrative anywhere in Scripture.

2. Then you said John 11:2 does not refer to one of those two events — specifically not Luke 7.
But if John 11:2 does not refer to Luke 7, and John 12 hasn’t happened yet, then John is pointing to an event that does not exist.

3. Then you said John 11:2 is “just a previous event.”
But that contradicts your earlier claim that Scripture “does not imply a previous event,” and it contradicts your claim that John 11:2 does not refer to Luke 7.

4. Then you said John 11:2 is a “non‑specific event” that gives “no details.”
A non‑specific event cannot be a previous event, because a previous event must be specific enough to be recognized. And a non‑specific event cannot identify Mary, because identification requires a known, recognizable past action. It also contradicts your claim that John 11:2 does not refer to either of the only two anointings recorded in Scripture, because if it is non‑specific and refers to neither of them, then it refers to nothing at all — which makes identification impossible.

5. Then you said John 11:2 is a “third distinct anointing narrative,” and you added details not found in Scripture.
But a distinct narrative requires details, setting, timeline, and Jesus present — all of which contradict your claim that John 11:2 is non‑specific and gives no details. And claiming a third narrative contradicts your original statement that there are only two anointings.

6. Then you went back to saying John 11:2 is non‑specific.
Which contradicts your claim that it is a distinct narrative, and contradicts your claim that it is a previous event.

7. And now you are again saying it is a previous event, but this time adding “not a timeline, rather more or less a note to identify Mary.”
But calling it “a note to identify Mary” means you are now treating John 11:2 as an identifier — which requires a specific, known past event that the reader can recognize. That directly contradicts your earlier claim that John 11:2 is a non‑specific event with no details, because a non‑specific event cannot identify anyone. It also contradicts your earlier statement that “these scriptures do not imply a previous event,” because an identifier is a reference to a previous event. And it contradicts your claim that John 11:2 is a third distinct anointing narrative, because an identifier is not a narrative and does not describe a new event happening in John 11.

So at this point you have claimed all of the following:

• only two anointings exist
• John 11:2 does not refer to either of them
• John 11:2 is a previous event
• John 11:2 is not a previous event
• John 11:2 is non‑specific
• John 11:2 is a distinct narrative
• John 11:2 gives no details
• John 11:2 has details (that you supplied)
• John 11:2 is not a timeline
• John 11:2 is a previous timeline event
• John 11:2 identifies Mary
• John 11:2 does not identify a previous event
• Scripture does not imply a previous event
• John 11:2 is a previous event and an identifier

These claims cannot all be true. Many of them cannot coexist with any of the others.

Meanwhile, the text itself still stands:

John 11:2 identifies and specifies which Mary Lazarus’s sister is by referring to a past hair‑wiping event. John 12 has not happened yet. The Gospels contain only one earlier hair‑wiping event: Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier event. The Gospels give no alternative earlier event.

So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

I’ve laid out the textual and logical contradictions plainly. At this point, further explanation won’t resolve them if you’re committed to your conclusion. But personal commitment doesn’t alter the text. It remains exactly what it says.

We have went over this enough, and oh my gosh and enough times.
Don't mind discussing things with you, just change topics.

 

[Moonwood]

You’ve now taken multiple mutually‑exclusive positions about John 11:2, and each new claim contradicts one or more of your earlier ones. Here is the sequence of what you’ve said:

1. You first acknowledged there are only two anointing narratives in the Gospels: Luke 7 and John 12.
That means there is no third anointing narrative anywhere in Scripture. Yet later you said you “stick to what Scripture says” while simultaneously inventing a third anointing narrative not found in Scripture.

2. Then you said John 11:2 does not refer to one of those two events — specifically not Luke 7.
But if John 11:2 does not refer to Luke 7, and John 12 hasn’t happened yet, then John is pointing to an event that does not exist. This contradicts your claim that you “stick to the storyline,” because the storyline contains only one earlier hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

3. Then you said John 11:2 is “just a previous event.”
But that contradicts your earlier claims that John 11:2 "does not imply a previous event" and does not refer to Luke 7. It also contradicts your statement that you "stick to what Scripture says," because Scripture records only one previous hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

4. Then you said John 11:2 is a “non‑specific event” that gives “no details.”
A non‑specific event cannot be a previous event, because a previous event must be specific enough to be recognized. And a non‑specific event cannot identify Mary, because identification requires a known, recognizable past action. This also contradicts your claim that John 11:2 does not refer to either of the only two anointings recorded in Scripture: Luke 7 and John 12 — because if it is non‑specific and refers to neither of them, then it refers to nothing at all, which makes identification impossible.

5. Then you said John 11:2 is a “third distinct anointing narrative,” and you added details not found in Scripture.
But a distinct narrative requires details, setting, timeline, and Jesus present — all of which contradict your claim that John 11:2 is non‑specific and gives no details. And claiming a third narrative contradicts your original statement that there are only two anointings. It also contradicts your later claim: "I never said 'third anointing narrative.'" You did — you affirmed it directly when asked, and only after adding details to John 11:2 that are not in Scripture in order to turn that single identifying note into a third anointing narrative.

6. Then you went back to saying John 11:2 is non‑specific.
Which contradicts your claim that it is a distinct narrative, and contradicts your claim that it is a previous event.

7. And now you are again saying it is a previous event, but this time adding “not a timeline, rather more or less a note to identify Mary.”
But calling it “a note to identify Mary” means you are now treating John 11:2 as an identifier — which requires a specific, known past event that the reader can recognize. That directly contradicts your earlier claim that John 11:2 is a non‑specific event with no details, because a non‑specific event cannot identify anyone. It also contradicts your earlier statement that “these scriptures do not imply a previous event,” because an identifier is a reference to a previous event. And it contradicts your claim that John 11:2 is a third distinct anointing narrative, because an identifier is not a narrative and does not describe a new event happening in John 11. Finally, it contradicts your statement “John knows how to identify someone,” because your interpretation leaves John identifying Mary by pointing to an event you cannot name.

So at this point you have claimed all of the following:

• only two anointings exist
• John 11:2 does not refer to either of them
• John 11:2 is a previous event
• John 11:2 is not a previous event
• John 11:2 is non‑specific
• John 11:2 is a distinct narrative
• John 11:2 gives no details
• John 11:2 has details (that you supplied)
• John 11:2 is not a timeline
• John 11:2 is a previous timeline event
• John 11:2 identifies Mary
• John 11:2 does not identify a previous event
• Scripture does not imply a previous event
• John 11:2 is a previous event and an identifier
• “I stick to what Scripture says”
• “I stick to the storyline”
• “John knows how to identify someone”
• “I never said ‘third anointing narrative’”

These claims cannot all be true. Many of them cannot coexist with any of the others.

John 11:2 identifies and specifies which Mary Lazarus’s sister is by referring to a past hair‑wiping event. John 12 has not happened yet. The Gospels contain only one earlier hair‑wiping event: Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier event. The Gospels give no alternative earlier event.

So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

We have went over this enough, and oh my gosh and enough times.
Don't mind discussing things with you, just change topics.

You didn’t mind discussing the topic until we reached the point where your claims were laid out side‑by‑side. Once the contradictions were visible, you didn’t attempt to show how they weren’t contradictions — you simply denied them, dismissed them, or repeated the same claims. That’s why we ended up going over them multiple times.

I don’t mind discussing things with you either. The only time it becomes circular is when a position is held so tightly that contradictions are denied rather than resolved. That’s exactly what happened in this discussion and the one prior to. If we want to avoid repeating that pattern, then shifting topics is fine with me.

 

[Grailhunter]

You didn’t mind discussing the topic until we reached the point where your claims were laid out side‑by‑side. Once the contradictions were visible, you didn’t attempt to show how they weren’t contradictions — you simply denied them, dismissed them, or repeated the same claims. That’s why we ended up going over them multiple times.

I don’t mind discussing things with you either. The only time it becomes circular is when a position is held so tightly that contradictions are denied rather than resolved. That’s exactly what happened in this discussion and the one prior to. If we want to avoid repeating that pattern, then shifting topics is fine with me.

False.
This was not really a debate. This was all covered in college many years ago.
We can discuss another topic sometime.
God Bless

 

[Moonwood]

More or less John 11:2 is a note to identify Mary, not a timeline, just a previous event.

You’ve now taken multiple mutually‑exclusive positions about John 11:2, and each new claim contradicts one or more of your earlier ones. Here is the sequence of what you’ve said:

1. You first acknowledged there are only two anointing narratives in the Gospels: Luke 7 and John 12.
That means there is no third anointing narrative anywhere in Scripture. Yet later you said you “stick to what Scripture says” while simultaneously inventing a third anointing narrative not found in Scripture.

2. Then you said John 11:2 does not refer to one of those two events — specifically not Luke 7.
But if John 11:2 does not refer to Luke 7, and John 12 hasn’t happened yet, then John is pointing to an event that does not exist. This contradicts your claim that you “stick to the storyline,” because the storyline contains only one earlier hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

3. Then you said John 11:2 is “just a previous event.”
But that contradicts your earlier claims that John 11:2 "does not imply a previous event" and does not refer to Luke 7. It also contradicts your statement that you "stick to what Scripture says," because Scripture records only one previous hair‑wiping event prior to John 12: Luke 7.

4. Then you said John 11:2 is a “non‑specific event” that gives “no details.”
A non‑specific event cannot be a previous event, because a previous event must be specific enough to be recognized. And a non‑specific event cannot identify Mary, because identification requires a known, recognizable past action. This also contradicts your claim that John 11:2 does not refer to either of the only two anointings recorded in Scripture: Luke 7 and John 12 — because if it is non‑specific and refers to neither of them, then it refers to nothing at all, which makes identification impossible.

5. Then you said John 11:2 is a “third distinct anointing narrative,” and you added details not found in Scripture.
But a distinct narrative requires details, setting, timeline, and Jesus present — all of which contradict your claim that John 11:2 is non‑specific and gives no details. And claiming a third narrative contradicts your original statement that there are only two anointings. It also contradicts your later claim: "I never said 'third anointing narrative.'" You did — you affirmed it directly when asked, and only after adding details to John 11:2 that are not in Scripture in order to turn that single identifying note into a third anointing narrative.

6. Then you went back to saying John 11:2 is non‑specific.
Which contradicts your claim that it is a distinct narrative, and contradicts your claim that it is a previous event.

7. And now you are again saying it is a previous event, but this time adding “not a timeline, rather more or less a note to identify Mary.”
But calling it “a note to identify Mary” means you are now treating John 11:2 as an identifier — which requires a specific, known past event that the reader can recognize. That directly contradicts your earlier claim that John 11:2 is a non‑specific event with no details, because a non‑specific event cannot identify anyone. It also contradicts your earlier statement that “these scriptures do not imply a previous event,” because an identifier is a reference to a previous event. And it contradicts your claim that John 11:2 is a third distinct anointing narrative, because an identifier is not a narrative and does not describe a new event happening in John 11. Finally, it contradicts your statement “John knows how to identify someone,” because your interpretation leaves John identifying Mary by pointing to an event you cannot name.

So at this point you have claimed all of the following:

• only two anointings exist
• John 11:2 does not refer to either of them
• John 11:2 is a previous event
• John 11:2 is not a previous event
• John 11:2 is non‑specific
• John 11:2 is a distinct narrative
• John 11:2 gives no details
• John 11:2 has details (that you supplied)
• John 11:2 is not a timeline
• John 11:2 is a previous timeline event
• John 11:2 identifies Mary
• John 11:2 does not identify a previous event
• Scripture does not imply a previous event
• John 11:2 is a previous event and an identifier
• “I stick to what Scripture says”
• “I stick to the storyline”
• “John knows how to identify someone”
• “I never said ‘third anointing narrative’”

These claims cannot all be true. Many of them cannot coexist with any of the others.

John 11:2 identifies and specifies which Mary Lazarus’s sister is by referring to a past hair‑wiping event. John 12 has not happened yet. The Gospels contain only one earlier hair‑wiping event: Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier event. The Gospels give no alternative earlier event.

So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

This was not really a debate. This was all covered in college many years ago.
We can discuss another topic sometime.
God Bless

If this was all settled for you in college, then the contradictions in your claims shouldn’t have appeared. They’re the reason the discussion wasn’t straightforward. Peace and God bless.

 

[Grailhunter]

If this was all settled for you in college, then the contradictions in your claims shouldn’t have appeared. They’re the reason the discussion wasn’t straightforward. Peace and God bless.

LOL

 

[Taken]

The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?​

No.

 

[Moonwood]

The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?​

No.

That’s about as useful as replying to a thesis with a shrug.

 

[Taken]

NT…Mary’s each sharing a common name and unique bond with Jesus and or His teaching and support..

Mary of Galilee wife of Joseph
Mary of Magdala
Mary of Bethany
Mary mother of James the younger
Mary mother of John Mark (Gospel of Mark)
Mary church member of the church in Rome

 

[Taken]

That’s about as useful as replying to a thesis with a shrug.

Six women named Mary, with scant mention of them, does not appear as highlights for The Big picture of God desiring a man to obtain Salvation.

 

[Moonwood]

NT…Mary’s each sharing a common name and unique bond with Jesus and or His teaching and support..

Mary of Galilee wife of Joseph
Mary of Magdala
Mary of Bethany
Mary mother of James the younger
Mary mother of John Mark (Gospel of Mark)
Mary church member of the church in Rome

Six women named Mary, with scant mention of them, does not appear as highlights for The Big picture of God desiring a man to obtain Salvation.

It’s true that the New Testament mentions several women named Mary, but my argument doesn’t depend on collapsing all of them into one. I’m examining three specific figures whose actions and descriptions overlap in ways that the Evangelists themselves highlight.

The distinctive gesture of anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair appears only in Luke 7 and John 12, and John explicitly identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who did this.” Luke places the forgiven woman immediately before introducing Mary Magdalene, a literary pairing he uses elsewhere to signal continuity.

These three women also share a coherent narrative arc — a troubled past, a transformative encounter with Jesus, devoted discipleship, and involvement in His burial or Resurrection. That’s why the early Church understood them as one remarkable disciple.

Listing other Marys in the New Testament doesn’t address these specific textual connections.

 

[Taken]

It’s true that the New Testament mentions several women named Mary, but my argument doesn’t depend on collapsing all of them into one. I’m examining three specific figures whose actions and descriptions overlap in ways that the Evangelists themselves highlight.

The distinctive gesture of anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair appears only in Luke 7 and John 12, and John explicitly identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who did this.” Luke places the forgiven woman immediately before introducing Mary Magdalene, a literary pairing he uses elsewhere to signal continuity.

These three women also share a coherent narrative arc — a troubled past, a transformative encounter with Jesus, devoted discipleship, and involvement in His burial or Resurrection. That’s why the early Church understood them as one remarkable disciple.

Listing other Marys in the New Testament doesn’t address these specific textual connections.

Listing the Mary’s, specific in the NT, is just facts…
Attempting to make individuals the same person by their works, service, devotion, support…
Is to accomplish what?