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

[Moonwood]

Ignored.

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]

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.

You just affirmed the contradiction:

• (a) non‑specific event — “No specific event given… correct.”
• (b) specific event — “Correct.”
• (c) no event — “It is an event that John noted,” even though you previously said it is “not a timeline.”

These three categories are mutually exclusive.
You cannot hold all three positions simultaneously.

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 must 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]

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



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.

disagree.

 

[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:

LOL Is this compliant. I will hand it over to the compliant department.
It really does not matter. You can say I made a mistake, but that does not change the fact the scriptures are still there.

 

[Grailhunter]

You just affirmed the contradiction:

• (a) non‑specific event — “No specific event given… correct.”
• (b) specific event — “Correct.”
• (c) no event — “It is an event that John noted,” even though you previously said it is “not a timeline.”

These three categories are mutually exclusive.
You cannot hold all three positions simultaneously.

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 must 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

The scriptures are still valid.

 

[Grailhunter]

You just affirmed the contradiction:

• (a) non‑specific event — “No specific event given… correct.”
• (b) specific event — “Correct.”
• (c) no event — “It is an event that John noted,” even though you previously said it is “not a timeline.”

These three categories are mutually exclusive.
You cannot hold all three positions simultaneously.

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 must 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

Deal with the scriptures.
The scriptures do not indicate that Mary Magdelene was the sinful woman that anointed Yeshua's feet with her hair.

• Only two anointings exist Incorrect, there are four anointings *
• John 11:2 does not refer to either of them It refers to Lazarus' sister Mary of Bethany
• John 11:2 is a previous event correct
• John 11:2 is not a previous event incorrect
• John 11:2 is non‑specific correct
• John 11:2 is a distinct narrative it is a previous event
• John 11:2 gives no details correct
• John 11:2 has details (that you supplied) There are no details in the scriptures.
• John 11:2 is not a timeline correct
• John 11:2 is a previous timeline event No timeline given just a previous event.
• John 11:2 identifies Mary Lazarus' sister Mary of Bethany Correct
• John 11:2 does not identify a previous event This scripture indicates a previous event
• Scripture does not imply a previous event This scripture indicates a previous event.
• John 11:2 is a previous event and an identifier A previous event only
• “I stick to what Scripture says” I stick to what the scripture says
• “I stick to the storyline” I stick to what the scriptures says
• “John knows how to identify someone” If he wants to
• “I never said ‘third anointing narrative’” Who is "I"?

It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. John 11:2

* The four anointings of Yeshua
1. In Luke 7:36-50, In the house of the Pharisee a woman wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them with ointment from an alabaster flask. She is described as a “woman of the city who was a sinner”. Neither she nor the city are named, but it was probably in Galilee as the events surrounding this passage took place in Galilee.

2. In John 12:1-11, It appears that this anointing occurs in Lazarus' house in Bethany as they were preparing-giving a dinner. Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment of pure nard . Judas Iscariot complained about the waste. This anointing took place six days (John 12:1) before the Passover at which Jesus was crucified.

3. In Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9, an unnamed woman anointed Jesus in the house of Simon the leper in the town of Bethany. She anointed Jesus’ head with very expensive ointment of pure nard from an alabaster flask. In this case some of Jesus’ disciples said to themselves, that it was a waste, Prompting Jesus to defend her action, describing it as a beautiful thing done to anoint him for burial. This anointing took place 2 days (Matthew 26:2 and Mark 14:1) before the Passover at which Jesus was crucified.

4. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. John 11:2 As far as sequences of anointings....This happens before #2 and #3 and since Mary of Bethany is not said to be a whore, it is a separate anointing.

Now it is my opinion that Lazarus' sister is Mary of Bethany and it is Mary Magdalene. (Mary called Magdalene) And it is my opinion that #3 is referring to Mary Magdaline and is a separate event because one event occurs 6 days before the Passover and the other 2 days before the Passover.

Note: As far as Yeshua healing demons from women.....And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means. Luke 8:1-3

About Mary of Bethany....

What Does the Bible Say About Mary Of Bethany?​

Bible verses about Mary Of Bethany

www.openbible.info

 

[Moonwood]

* The four anointings of Yeshua
1. In Luke 7:36-50, In the house of the Pharisee a woman wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them with ointment from an alabaster flask. She is described as a “woman of the city who was a sinner”. Neither she nor the city are named, but it was probably in Galilee as the events surrounding this passage took place in Galilee.

2. In John 12:1-11, It appears that this anointing occurs in Lazarus' house in Bethany as they were preparing-giving a dinner. Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment of pure nard . Judas Iscariot complained about the waste. This anointing took place six days (John 12:1) before the Passover at which Jesus was crucified.

3. In Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9, an unnamed woman anointed Jesus in the house of Simon the leper in the town of Bethany. She anointed Jesus’ head with very expensive ointment of pure nard from an alabaster flask. In this case some of Jesus’ disciples said to themselves, that it was a waste, Prompting Jesus to defend her action, describing it as a beautiful thing done to anoint him for burial. This anointing took place 2 days (Matthew 26:2 and Mark 14:1) before the Passover at which Jesus was crucified.

4. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. John 11:2 As far as sequences of anointings....This happens before #2 and #3 and since Mary of Bethany is not said to be a whore, it is a separate anointing.

Since you repeated your “four anointings” claim again, I need to confirm something clearly:

Is “four anointings” the number you are now committing to going forward?

You have previously argued:

• 2 anointings
• 3 anointings
• 3 + 1 (John 11:2 as a separate category)
• and now 4 anointings

Before we continue, you need to commit to one number so your position can be evaluated consistently.

Are you committing to four aniontings?

 

[Moonwood]

The scriptures are still valid.

But your contradictions are not valid.
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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

 

[Grailhunter]

Since you repeated your “four anointings” claim again, I need to confirm something clearly:

Is “four anointings” the number you are now committing to going forward?

You have previously argued:

• 2 anointings
• 3 anointings
• 3 + 1 (John 11:2 as a separate category)
• and now 4 anointings

Before we continue, you need to commit to one number so your position can be evaluated consistently.

Are you committing to four?

Commit is not the right term. As I said before they were always there. Our discussion started out with whether Mary Magdalene was the sinful whore that whipped Yeshua's feet with her tears and hair. A point that you have never produced scriptures to support. I on the other hand expanded the conversation to all anointings, none of which indicates Mary Magdalene was the sinful whore. Which logically would be the end of the discussion because you cannot prove your belief.

 

[Grailhunter]

You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given."

I did not say that.
Read the verse it identifies Mary of Bethany anointed Yeshua previously. That it and the all. The difference between me and you is I am producing scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Specific event that is not detailed else where in the scriptures.
Again you cannot produce scriptures to support your belief.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

That would be false....it points to event.
Again what are you producing to support your false belief.

 

[Grailhunter]

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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

Again I have already defined it as specific event with no details. That is valid.
All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. Stick with the scriptures.

 

[Moonwood]

Commit is not the right term. As I said before they were always there.

So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?

Again I have already defined it as specific event with no details. That is valid.

Again, you did not “define it” as a single category.

I have quoted all three of your different and mutually exclusive positions directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is not valid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

This has nothing to do with “my belief.”
I am quoting your words, not presenting mine.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

 

[Grailhunter]

So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?



Again, you did not “define it” as a single category.

I have quoted all three of your different and mutually exclusive positions directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is not valid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

This has nothing to do with “my belief.”
I am quoting your words, not presenting mine.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

You are repeating yourself over and over again like you cannot read.
Read post 246.
And you still have not produced anything to prove your point.

 

[Moonwood]

You are repeating yourself over and over again like you cannot read.
Read post 246

Post #246 does not answer the question.
It does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2.
It does not resolve your contradictions.

I have quoted all three of your different and mutually exclusive positions directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is invalid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

Are you committing to four aniontings?

Commit is not the right term. As I said before they were always there.

So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?

 

[Grailhunter]

Post #246 does not answer the question.
It does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2.

Copied from post 251
Specific event that is not detail else where in the scriptures.

All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246

 

[Moonwood]

Copied from post 251
Specific event that is not detail else where in the scriptures.

All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246

That is not an answer to the question.

Post #246 does not answer the question.
Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2.
Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions.

I asked:

"So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"

Are you, or are you not?

And you have argued three different and mutually exclusive positions, and I have quoted each of your statements directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is invalid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

 

[Grailhunter]

That is not an answer to the question.

Post #246 does not answer the question.
Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2.
Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions.

I asked:

"So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"

Are you, or are you not?

And you have argued three different and mutually exclusive positions, and I have quoted each of your statements directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is invalid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.

Copied from post 251
Specific event that is not detailed else where in the scriptures.

All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246
You have given no example of a contradiction.

 

[Moonwood]

Copied from post 251
Specific event that is not detail else where in the scriptures.

All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246
You have given no example of a contradiction.

That is not an answer to the question.

Post #246 does not answer the question.
Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2.
Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions.

I asked:

"So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"

Are you, or are you not?

And you have argued three different and mutually exclusive positions, and I have quoted each of your statements directly:

• (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• (b) Specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• (c) No event: “John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline.” (post #165)

Your new category — “Specific event with no details” — is invalid.
It is simply a way of merging (a) and (b), which contradict each other.

You still need to choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2:

(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

Until you choose one, your position remains self‑contradictory.