Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
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
The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?
- Thread starter Moonwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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
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)
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.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
This is the answer to the question about the event. For the tenth time I have answered you. You asked the question, you don't get to offer a selection. The answer is what the scriptures says.
Copied from post 251
It is a specific event that is not detailed else where in the scriptures.
All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. If you can't prove your false belief admit it. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I am not arguing. And why would I need to defend the scriptures? And no, we were not talking about the four anointings to begin with.
Either try to prove your belief about Mary Magdalene being the sinful woman at Yeshua's feet or admit you cannot. As they say in England.....You are boring me now!
A note to the reader.....This is the opening post by Moonwood
The Gospel narratives present three women whose actions, circumstances, and narrative roles overlap in striking ways:
- The unnamed repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7)
- Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, in Bethany (Matthew 26; Mark 14; John 11-12)
- Mary Magdalene, healed of seven demons and honored as the first witness of the Resurrection
At this point she cannot prove that Mary Magdalene was the repentant whore washing His feet with her tears and wiping them with her hair.
Mary Magdalene was a devoted follower of Yeshua and the scriptures do not connect her to the repentant whore.
Because she cannot prove her false belief, she has resorted to asking the same questions over and over again, even though I have answered them several times.
I don't know if she is trolling, or has a mental condition. Either way God Bless her.
Last edited:
That's not an answer to the question.
I asked you:
In reply, you answered:
In reply, I asked:
Are you, or are you not?
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)
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
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Bible is not invalid.
John knew it was a specific event and did not provide details.
I do not know if he has a complaint department or answers to your categorization.
All you are doing is repeating your questions. No proof of your belief. If you can't prove your false belief admit it. Stick with the scriptures.
Read post 246
And its because if you committed to your latest claim of "always four anointings," you'd know the next question would be this:
"How can you say you've always argued in the defense of four anointings when you've previously argued two anointings and then three anointings before your latest claim of four anointings? See below:
Your original claim: Two anointings
Post #52 (September 23):- Luke 7:36–50 – Sinful Woman
- "Occurs in Galilee, about a year before the crucifixion."
- Matthew 26 / Mark 14 / John 12 – Mary of Bethany "
- "Occurs in Bethany, near Jerusalem, six days before the crucifixion."
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)
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)
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
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
How many times have I told you I am not arguing with you. No reason to argue. Really no reason to debate, the scriptures speak for themselves. You seem like an intelligent person but you are really thick headed.
I have answered all your questions but you need to understand I do not care if you do not like the answers, that is all you are going to get. I don't change my answers and I do not contradict myself. Because a conversation expands does not mean it is a contradiction.
You need to look at the sequence of the conversations. We started discussing two anointing regarding if Mary Magdelene was the repentant sinful woman that anointed Yeshua feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. And Mary of Bethany that anointed Yeshua's with oil and dried them with her hair was the same person. A point you have yet to prove.
Then the conversation expanded to the other anointings, probably after I mentioned "the Muddle of the Marys"
Again posts 191 and 246 answered your questions, you just do not like the answers
Last edited:
@Grailhunter, here is the documented sequence of your own statements, in order, showing how your position changed from two anointings → three → four, along with your redefinitions of passages you previously grouped together.
1. You began by asserting two anointings.
Post #11 (Sept 22):
Post #27 (Sept 22):
Post #52 (Sept 22):
You again listed two:
2. Then you changed your position to three anointings.
Post #110 (Sept 24):
You confirmed this shift when I asked about it:
Post #113:
"Yes"
Two days ago (Oct 5), you modified this again:
3. Then you changed your position again — this time to four anointings.
Post #246 (Oct 5):
You now listed four:
Now you treat them as two separate events.
4. Your claims about John 11:2 also changed multiple times.
You have argued John 11:2 is:
You have claimed all three mutually exclusive categories:
On Sept 22, in post #31, I quoted your original statement from post #27:
On Sept 24, in post #111, I said to you:
1. You began by asserting two anointings.
Post #11 (Sept 22):
Post #27 (Sept 22):
Post #52 (Sept 22):
You again listed two:
You explicitly grouped Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8 together as one event.
2. Then you changed your position to three anointings.
Post #110 (Sept 24):
You again grouped Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8, calling them “similar” and identifying the unnamed woman as Mary of Bethany.
You confirmed this shift when I asked about it:
Post #113:
"Yes"
Two days ago (Oct 5), you modified this again:
3. Then you changed your position again — this time to four anointings.
Post #246 (Oct 5):
You now listed four:
- Luke 7:36-50
- John 12:1-8 (Bethany, 6 days before Passover)
- Matthew 26:6-13 / Mark 14:3-9 (Bethany, 2 days before Passover)
- John 11:2 — which you now call a separate anointing event
You originally treated Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12 as one event.
Now you treat them as two separate events.
4. Your claims about John 11:2 also changed multiple times.
You have argued John 11:2 is:
- a non‑specific event:
“No specific event given.” (post #79)
- a specific event:
“It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
- both an identifier and a "previous event"
“John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline, just a previous event.” (post #165)
- no event:
“John 11:2 is more or less a note to identify Mary, not a timeline...” (post #165)
You have claimed all three mutually exclusive categories:
- Non‑specific event
- Specific event
- Both an identifier and a previous event
- No event
5. You edited your earlier posts to change your claims retroactively.
On Sept 22, in post #31, I quoted your original statement from post #27:
But on October 5 at 7:31 AM, you edited that same post to now say:
This is a retroactive change to your earlier position.
On Sept 24, in post #111, I said to you:
And you affirmed that directly in post #113:
But on Oct 5 at 7:22 AM, you edited post #110 to now say:
This is another retroactive change, altering your earlier claim after the fact.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
There is no conflict there. We did not start out talking about every anointing. We started out talking about whether or not the repentant woman was Mary Magdalene. I am not going to analyze our conversation. The topic is just that. If you want to find fault on how it progressed.....could not care less. From the start I was the only one providing the facts and scriptures. The facts are listed in Post 191 and 246.
I am assuming you know that you cannot prove that Mary Magdalene was the repentant whore.
++++.could not care less.
and that's why I have him on IGNORE - his 'noise' is of no interest to me nor does anything to edify believers in general
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The topic is about whether the repentant woman, Lazarus’s sister, Mary, and Mary Magdalene are the same woman.
Your claim that “we did not start out talking about every anointing” is not accurate. In my opening post, I referenced the two anointings directly relevant to the identity question (Luke 7 and Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9;John 12:1–9). You did not mention anointings in your first reply, but in your second reply you introduced them as a distinction argument — asserting “two different reasons,” “two different places,” “two different groups,” and “two different conversations.” From that point forward, you expanded the discussion into “every anointing,” eventually increasing the count from two, to three, to three plus a note, and finally four. That expansion came from you.
Here's how it began:
I cited John 11:2 as evidence that Lazarus's sister, Mary, is the repentant woman in Luke 7:36-50, because it functions as an identifier.
You disagreed for two reasons:
1. The repentant woman is "sexually promiscuous," and there is "no indication" that Lazarus's sister was. (posts #11; #15)
2. There is "nothing to tie the two women or the two (anointing) events together." (post #39)
When you could no longer defend that position, you changed it — repeatedly — throughout the discussion.
For example:
1. Your original claim of two anointings (Luke 7:36-50 and Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8) evolved into three, then three plus a note, and finally four. (refer to post #270)
2. You have argued multiple contradictory interpretations of John 11:2 (refer to post #270):
- a non‑specific event
- a specific event
- no event
- both an identifier and a "previous event"
- both a specific and a non-specific event
Our discussion stalled because you deny and refuse to resolve those contradictions and revisions, while also refusing to commit to a single number of anointings and a single interpretation of John 11:2. Without those commitments, no consistent discussion of John 11:2 is possible.
Taken together, these shifts show a clear pattern: your position did not remain consistent, but changed repeatedly — from two anointings, to three, to three plus a “note,” to four — along with multiple contradictory interpretations of John 11:2 and retroactive edits to earlier posts to align them with your later claims.
The record above reflects your own words as they were originally posted and, in several cases, later altered. It represents the complete history of the main claims you made throughout this discussion.
Any continuation on your end of denial, silence, or contradictory statements in response to your own words is not a “debate”; it is simply further avoidance of the documented record.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Your back to analizing the conversation.
You accused me of adding anointings. I did, we were talking about if, Mary Magdalene was the repentant whore. A point you have not really presented any evidence of.
And I will say it again, I do not care about your concerns about the conversation.
Quite wasting my time and admit you cannot prove that Mary Magdelene was the repentant whore.
Or admit you cannot prove it.
Posts 191 and 246 explains it all.
If I failed to make my case, why did your position change from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four, while your interpretation of John 11:2 changed multiple times and earlier posts were later edited to reflect newer positions?
Last edited:
This isn’t about Catholic doctrine — it’s about what John actually wrote. John explicitly identifies Lazarus and Martha's sister, Mary, as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” (John 11:2) before narrating the Bethany anointing in John 12. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7:36-50, so John is clearly pointing back to that act. That’s not Catholic or Protestant — it’s simply the plain reading of John 11:2.
And Luke’s narrative style supports this. Luke frequently introduces major figures without naming them — the Emmaus disciple, the bleeding woman, the widow of Nain, the rich ruler, the paralytic lowered through the roof, even the thief on the cross. So the unnamed repentant woman in Luke 7:36-50 fits Luke’s normal pattern. The absence of a name doesn’t prove she’s a different person.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Again and again and again......I never changed anything about John 11:2. There is not that much to that verse. John 11:2 refers to an anointing with little details.
And again, make your case or admit you cannot.
Similar threads
