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

[Grailhunter]

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.

You have a religion of assumptions. No wonder why you are so confused.

 

[Moonwood]

...make your case or admit you cannot.

I presented my position. Your response was to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; offer multiple contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and retroactively edit earlier posts. I'd say that speaks for itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

I presented my position. Your response was to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four;

I did not write the Bible.....so I cannot change anything. Not my fault that you did not know.

offer multiple contradictory interpretations of John 11:2;

Never ever had contradictory interpretations of John 11:2.
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
Read it slowly. No interpretation necessary. Besides your religion by assumptions and reading things into the scriptures that are not there.....There is no telling what you believe.

 

[Grailhunter]

and retroactively edit earlier posts. I'd say that speaks for itself.

Other than make corrections I do not know what you are referring to.
But again, post anything but try to prove your point.

 

[Moonwood]

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.

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):

1. a non‑specific event
2. a specific event
3. no event
4. both an identifier and a "previous event"
5. both a specific and a non-specific event

3. You edited earlier posts to retroactively change your claims.

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.

 

[Grailhunter]

The topic is about whether the repentant woman, Lazarus’s sister, Mary, and Mary Magdalene are the same woman.

Whether YOU are saying they are the same woman
Or YOU are claiming Mary Magdalene is the repentant whore.
It is the same claim, of which you have no evidence of.

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.

Again and again and again I have explained to you that the conversation expanded.

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.

There is not enough there to be an identifier. I told you that from the get go.

Again you are posting long post so I will ignore the rest.