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

[Grailhunter]

You are now saying Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 are different events because of the dates.
But that does not explain why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event:

No, reading comprehention!
I am saying that Matthew 26:1-3 and Mark 14:1-9 are two days before Passover and John 12:1-11 is 6 days before Passover.
Never said they were the same event, just did not get into the details.

 

[Grailhunter]

But your own posts show that the number did evolve.
The timeline of your claims is clear and documented:

Your original claim: Two anointings​

Post #52 (September 23):

• Luke 7:36–50 – Sinful Woman
• Matthew 26 / Mark 14 / John 12 – Mary of Bethany
  (You grouped all three together as one event.)

​

Your revised claim: Three anointings​

Post #110 (September 24), later edited October 5:



You listed:

• Mary of Bethany
• The sinful woman
• The unnamed woman at Simon the leper’s house
• Plus a “note of a previous anointing” (John 11:2)

This edit was made to avoid a contradiction I documented.

​

Your newest claim: Four anointings​

Post #191 (October 5):

1. Luke 7:36–50
2. John 12:1–11
3. Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9
4. John 11:2 — treated as a separate anointing event

You wrote:



This is the first time you formally counted John 11:2 as a separate anointing event in your list. While you have made contradictory statements about John 11:2 over time — sometimes treating it as a non‑specific event, sometimes as a specific event, and sometimes as no event at all — post #191 is the first time you officially added it to your numbered list as a distinct anointing event.

That is an evolution: 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4.​

Your current explanation (the dates) only describes your latest position.
It does not explain why your previous positions were different.

You originally grouped Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12 together.
Later you separated them.
Then you added John 11:2 as a new event.
Then you changed the total number again.

The dates do not explain these changes — they only explain your current interpretation.

So the question remains:

Why did your count of anointings change from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.


2. Commit to ONE of the following, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• a. two anointing events
  
  
• b. three anointing events
  
  
• c. four anointing events

too big a post.....ignored.

 

[Grailhunter]

But you have already given arguments that fall under each of the three categories:

• Non‑specific event (a)
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• Specific event (b)
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• No event (c)
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

You must choose one because each category represents a mutually exclusive interpretation of John 11:2, and you have argued all three at different times.
You cannot hold all three positions simultaneously.

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not a valid option because it combines Category (a) and Category (b), which contradict each other.
If it is a real event, it must have identifiable details; if it has no details, it is non‑specific.
You cannot merge mutually exclusive categories.

Therefore, you must now choose one of the three options and cite the passage(s) that support it:

• a. John 11:2 refers to a non‑specific event
• b. John 11:2 refers to a specific event
• c. John 11:2 refers to no event

All answered in post 191.

 

[Moonwood]

No, reading comprehention!
I am saying that Matthew 26:1-3 and Mark 14:1-9 are two days before Passover and John 12:1-11 is 6 days before Passover.
Never said they were the same event, just did not get into the details.

No, this is not a reading comprehension issue. It is a documentation issue.

You did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event.
You said it explicitly in your original “Two Different Anointings” post:

Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany
Occurs in Bethany, near Jerusalem, six days before the crucifixion.

That is not “not getting into details.”
That is grouping them as one event.

And you said it again in a later post:

“In the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9… While John identifies this woman as Mary…”

This statement directly identifies the unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark as the same Mary in John 12 — which means you were treating all three passages as one single anointing event performed by the same woman.

Your new explanation —

“Matthew and Mark are two days before Passover, John 12 is six days before Passover”

only explains your current position.

It does not explain why you originally grouped all three together as one event.

So the question remains:

Why did you originally group Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.

 

[Moonwood]

too big a post.....ignored.

You’re not ignoring the post because of its size — you’re ignoring it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

 

[Moonwood]

All answered in post 191.

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2.

You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times:

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not valid because it merges (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

Therefore, you must now choose one of the three options and cite the passage(s) that support it:

• a. John 11:2 refers to a non‑specific event
• b. John 11:2 refers to a specific event
• c. John 11:2 refers to no event

 

[Grailhunter]

You did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event.
You said it explicitly in your original “Two Different Anointings” post:

Give me a post number

 

[Grailhunter]

This statement directly identifies the unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark as the same Mary in John 12 — which means you were treating all three passages as one single anointing event performed by the same woman.

Sentence does not make sense.

 

[Grailhunter]

“Matthew and Mark are two days before Passover, John 12 is six days before Passover”

only explains your current position.

It does not explain why you originally grouped all three together as one event.

So the question remains:

Why did you originally group Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.

I am just saying what the scriptures say.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re not ignoring the post because of its size — you’re ignoring it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

No I told you I was going to start doing that.

 

[Grailhunter]

You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times:

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

I am not arguing, the scriptures tell the story. I am just posting them.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not valid because it merges (a) and (b), which contradict each other

It is what it is. Don't blame me. Again just posting the scripture. I am not going to apologize for John.

 

[Grailhunter]

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2.

You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times:

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not valid because it merges (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

Therefore, you must now choose one of the three options and cite the passage(s) that support it:

• a. John 11:2 refers to a non‑specific event
• b. John 11:2 refers to a specific event
• c. John 11:2 refers to no event

Post 191 explains it all.

 

[Moonwood]

Give me a post number

Are you asking for post numbers so you can go back and alter them after they've been quoted, like you did with posts #27 and #110?
And I already linked to them:

You did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event.
You said it explicitly in your original “Two Different Anointings” post:

Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany
Occurs in Bethany, near Jerusalem, six days before the crucifixion.

That is not “not getting into details.”
That is grouping them as one event.

And you said it again in a later post:

“In the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9… While John identifies this woman as Mary…”

This statement directly identifies the unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark as the same Mary in John 12 — which means you were treating all three passages as one single anointing event performed by the same woman.

Click the words "post" that are highlighted blue — one will take you to post #52 and the other post #80.

Your new explanation —

“Matthew and Mark are two days before Passover, John 12 is six days before Passover”

only explains your current position.

It does not explain why you originally grouped all three together as one event.

So the question remains:

Why did you originally group Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.

 

[Moonwood]

No I told you I was going to start doing that.

You can choose to ignore long posts if you want, but that doesn’t change the reason you ignored this one. You didn’t ignore it because of size — you ignored it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

But your own posts show that the number did evolve.
The timeline of your claims is clear and documented:

Your original claim: Two anointings​

Post #52 (September 23):

• Luke 7:36–50 – Sinful Woman
• Matthew 26 / Mark 14 / John 12 – Mary of Bethany
  (You grouped all three together as one event.)

​

Your revised claim: Three anointings​

Post #110 (September 24), later edited October 5:

“The Bible records three distinct anointing events… and one note of a previous anointing.”

You listed:

• Mary of Bethany
• The sinful woman
• The unnamed woman at Simon the leper’s house
• Plus a “note of a previous anointing” (John 11:2)

This edit was made to avoid a contradiction I documented.

​

Your newest claim: Four anointings​

Post #191 (October 5):

1. Luke 7:36–50
2. John 12:1–11
3. Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9
4. John 11:2 — treated as a separate anointing event

You wrote:

“This happens before #2 and #3… it is a separate anointing.”

This is the first time you formally counted John 11:2 as a separate anointing event in your list. While you have made contradictory statements about John 11:2 over time — sometimes treating it as a non‑specific event, sometimes as a specific event, and sometimes as no event at all — post #191 is the first time you officially added it to your numbered list as a distinct anointing event.

That is an evolution: 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4.​

Your current explanation (the dates) only describes your latest position.
It does not explain why your previous positions were different.

You originally grouped Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12 together.
Later you separated them.
Then you added John 11:2 as a new event.
Then you changed the total number again.

The dates do not explain these changes — they only explain your current interpretation.

So the question remains:

Why did your count of anointings change from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.


2. Commit to ONE of the following, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• a. two anointing events
  
  
• b. three anointing events
  
  
• c. four anointing events

 

[Moonwood]

Post 191 explains it all.

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2.

You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times:

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not valid because it merges (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

Therefore, you must now choose one of the three options and cite the passage(s) that support it:

• a. John 11:2 refers to a non‑specific event
• b. John 11:2 refers to a specific event
• c. John 11:2 refers to no event

 

[Grailhunter]

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2.

You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times:

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  
  
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing.

Your new category (“a real event with no details”) is not valid because it merges (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

Therefore, you must now choose one of the three options and cite the passage(s) that support it:

• a. John 11:2 refers to a non‑specific event
• b. John 11:2 refers to a specific event
• c. John 11:2 refers to no event

I am just posting scripture if do not like them, you need to file your complaint with Him.

• a. Non‑specific event
  You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given." Correct.
  This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no timeline, no scriptural description.
  Still an event
• b. Specific event
  You also said "It (John 11:2) points to an anointing that happened before."
  This implies a real, identifiable event with Jesus present — which fits the definition of a specific event. Correct.
  
  
• c. No event
  You also said, "John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline..."
  This fits the definition of no event, meaning it functions only as a character note rather than describing an anointing. No event? Only in your mind. It is an event that John noted.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can choose to ignore long posts if you want, but that doesn’t change the reason you ignored this one. You didn’t ignore it because of size — you ignored it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

Ignored.

 

[Grailhunter]

Click the words "post" that are highlighted blue — one will take you to post #52 and the other post #80.

Nothing highlighted in blue.
Post 52 I listed scriptures never said they were one.
Post 80 I didn't say anything....that was a copy and paste from the internet.

 

[Moonwood]

Nothing highlighted in blue.
Post 52 I listed scriptures never said they were one.
Post 80 I didn't say anything....that was a copy and paste from the internet.

Yes there was. I'll enlarge it for you:

You did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event.
You said it explicitly in your original “Two Different Anointings” post:

Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany
Occurs in Bethany, near Jerusalem, six days before the crucifixion.

That is not “not getting into details.”
That is grouping them as one event.

And you said it again in a later post:

“In the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9… While John identifies this woman as Mary…”

This statement directly identifies the unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark as the same Mary in John 12 — which means you were treating all three passages as one single anointing event performed by the same woman.

And you did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event.

In Post 52, you grouped all three passages under one heading:

Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany
Occurs in Bethany… six days before the crucifixion.

That is not “listing scriptures.”
That is grouping them as one event with one description.

And in Post 80, you posted:

“In the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9… While John identifies this woman as Mary…”

Copy‑paste or not, you posted it as part of your argument. It directly identifies the unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark as the same Mary in John 12 — which means you were treating all three passages as one single anointing performed by the same woman.

Whether you now claim it was “copy and paste” does not change what you posted or what it means.

Your new explanation —

“Matthew and Mark are two days before Passover, John 12 is six days before Passover”

only explains your current position.

It does not explain why you originally grouped all three together as one event.

So the question remains:

Why did you originally group Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two?

This is about your change of position, not the dates in the text.