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.

 

[Rockerduck]

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 are clearly pushing a belief that you didn't learn/teach yourself. I've only seen Catholics push those are the same woman. Just like Jesus' mother Mary didn't have anymore children. Two different women wiped Jesus' feet. The woman at Simon's house did not anoint Jesus' feet, the Mary at the dinner did. Jesus made that clear, but you don't believe Jesus.

 

[Moonwood]

I have explained to you that the conversation expanded.

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there."
A discussion can expand without a person's position changing.
In this case, however, your documented position changed from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and finally to four.
That is not merely an expansion of the conversation. It is an evolution of your position.

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

You have not held a single, consistent interpretation of John 11:2.
You have argued it is:

• a non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• a specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• a real event with no details: “it is real but does not give any details.” (post #164)
• an identifier: “a note to identify Mary...” (post #165)
• a previous event: “just a previous event.” (post #165)
• a specific event with no details: “Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures.” (post #251)

And now you're saying:

“There is not enough in John 11:2 to be an identifier.”

That is not what you have said "from the get go."
It is simply your latest interpretation.

Other than make corrections I do not know what you are referring to.

The issue isn't that you edited posts. The issue is that the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.
Changing "two separate accounts" (as quoted in post #31) to "three separate accounts" (post #27) is not a correction.
Changing "three distinct anointing events" to "three distinct anointing events and one note of a previous anointing" (post #110) is not a correction.
Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

 

[Grailhunter]

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there." They did not magically appear in the Bible after we started talking. We were just not discussing them.
A discussion can expand without a person's position changing. My position never changed.
In this case, however, your documented position changed from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and finally to four. Yes the conversation expanded
That is not merely an expansion of the conversation. It is an evolution of your position. Yes it is.

Again you are critiquing the conversation and I do not care if you do not like it.
And again you are avoiding the fact that you cannot prove your belief.

 

[Grailhunter]

You have not held a single, consistent interpretation of John 11:2.
You have argued it is:

• a non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• a specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• a real event with no details: “it is real but does not give any details.” (post #164)
• an identifier: “a note to identify Mary...” (post #165)
• a previous event: “just a previous event.” (post #165)
• a specific event with no details: “Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures.” (post #251)

And now you're saying:

“There is not enough in John 11:2 to be an identifier.”

That is not what you have said "from the get go."
It is simply your latest interpretation.


The issue isn't that you edited posts. The issue is that the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.
Changing "two separate accounts" (as quoted in post #31) to "three separate accounts" (post #27) is not a correction.
Changing "three distinct anointing events" to "three distinct anointing events and one note of a previous anointing" (post #110) is not a correction.
Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

Again the point is to correct. That is a good thing.
The thing is I was just not writing this for you but also for the readers. You apparently know you cannot prove your point but there are people out there that can use the information. Stick with the scriptures.
And the rest of this I have answered.....who knows how many times.
And again avoiding your issues that you cannot prove your belief.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again I wonder and maybe speculate a little about the women that anointed Yeshua. Messiah means “anointed one” What was the significance of only women anointing Yeshua? The scriptures indicate that anointing came from a person of authority. What were these women’s authority? Did they belong to a group? Were they priestesses?

Yeshua was a priest of the Order of Melchizedek. Some link Melchizedek to the Magi. Where these women members of the Magi. They financed Yeshua’s ministry. The Magi gave Yeshua a treasure of gifts, was that to finance His later ministry?

Then you have this….

The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:42

Is Yeshua talking about the risen Queen of Sheba or is Mary Magdalene a descendant of the Queen of Sheba? In which case it raise the bar for the pedigree and royalty of Mary Magdalene

Now I need to add…..I believe Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are one in the same.

BUT, no scripture specifically confirms this. But her significance is well docutmented.

What do we know about Mary Magdaline….She was part of group of women that financed Yeshua’s ministry…..The work of God. She apparently was part of a group of women that were followers of Yeshua. The Apostles knew she was important to Yeshua, so they put her at the top of the lists of Yeshua’s female followers, just as Peter tops the lists. She was at the cross with Yeshua with His mother and the other female followers of Christ. On the day that Yeshua was to resurrect, she was at the tomb. (She had more faith than the Apostles because they were not at the tomb and when He revealed Himself to them, they thought He was a ghost. The whole doubting Thomas thing. So the Apostles were hiding.) Yeshua chose to reveal Himself to Mary Magdaline first and she was overjoyed. Mary Magdaline is given the honor of proclaiming the risen Christ to the hiding apostles.

I believe that Mary Magdaline and Mary of Bethany are the same person even though scriptures do not name her as such. I believe that Lazarus and his sister Mary Magdaline and Martha were an extended family for Yeshua. That is why Martha scolded Yeshua like a brother for not being there when Lazurus was sick. Because she knew that Yeshua could have saved him. Of course He did something greater by raising Lazurus from the dead.

The rest of the details are in posts 191 and 246.

 

[Moonwood]

I have explained to you that the conversation expanded.

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there."
A discussion can expand without a person's position changing.
In this case, however, your documented position changed from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and finally to four.
That is not merely an expansion of the conversation. It is an evolution of your position.

Again the point is to correct.

The edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Changing "two separate accounts" (as quoted in post #31) to "three separate accounts" (post #27) is not a correction.

Changing "three distinct anointing events" to "three distinct anointing events and one note of a previous anointing" (post #110) is not a correction.

Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

More importantly, after changing post #27 from two accounts to three accounts, you did not make corresponding changes to later posts where you continued arguing for two anointings, such as:

"Hair wiping occurred in both stories, one with tears and one with oil. Not the same people, not the same place, not the same purpose. No biblical connection between the two stories." (post #37)

That is why the issue is not "corrections."
The edits altered earlier claims while leaving other contemporaneous statements unchanged.
Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

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

You have not held a single, consistent interpretation of John 11:2.
You have argued it is:

• a non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• a specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• a real event with no details: “it is real but does not give any details.” (post #164)
• an identifier: “a note to identify Mary...” (post #165)
• a previous event: “just a previous event.” (post #165)
• a specific event with no details: “Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures.” (post #251)

And now you're saying:

“There is not enough in John 11:2 to be an identifier.”

That is not what you have said "from the get go."
It is simply your latest interpretation.



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.

 

[Grailhunter]

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there."

Again and again, I did not write the Bible. They were always there we just were not discussing them from the begining.

The edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Changing "two separate accounts" (as quoted in post #31) to "three separate accounts" (post #27) is not a correction.

Changing "three distinct anointing events" to "three distinct anointing events and one note of a previous anointing" (post #110) is not a correction.

Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

More importantly, after changing post #27 from two accounts to three accounts, you did not make corresponding changes to later posts where you continued arguing for two anointings, such as:

"Hair wiping occurred in both stories, one with tears and one with oil. Not the same people, not the same place, not the same purpose. No biblical connection between the two stories." (post #37)

That is why the issue is not "corrections."
The edits altered earlier claims while leaving other contemporaneous statements unchanged.
Those are changes in position, not corrections of errors.

Again and again the changes were about accuracy for those that were reading. Part of my ministry is about debunking false beliefs.
As far as you and your belief that Mary Magdalene was the repentant whore or all the same person, I did not defeat you the scriptures defeated you and you gave up.
That is the topic of this thread, not if you like how the conversation went or not. I don't care if you liked it or not.

 

[Grailhunter]

You have not held a single, consistent interpretation of John 11:2.
You have argued it is:

• a non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)
• a specific event: “It points to an anointing that happened before.” (post #149)
• a real event with no details: “it is real but does not give any details.” (post #164)
• an identifier: “a note to identify Mary...” (post #165)
• a previous event: “just a previous event.” (post #165)
• a specific event with no details: “Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures.” (post #251)

And now you're saying:

“There is not enough in John 11:2 to be an identifier.”

That is not what you have said "from the get go."
It is simply your latest interpretation.

No I have always said the scripture says what it says no more....
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
This scripture does not point to a specific event, just Mary the sister of Lazarus anointed Yeshua's feet with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. I have never added or taken away from it.
And again you have failed to prove your belief.

 

[Moonwood]

...I did not write the Bible. They were always there we just were not discussing them from the begining.

No one is claiming you wrote the Bible. The question is whether you were always arguing for four anointings.
The record shows that you were not.
You initially argued for two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four.
The passages did not change. Your interpretation of them did.

No I have always said the scripture says what it says no more....
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
This scripture does not point to a specific event, just Mary the sister of Lazarus anointed Yeshua's feet with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. I have never added or taken away from it.

You just contradicted your own claim that you've held the same interpretation "from the get go."

You previously said:

• non‑specific event:
  "No specific event given." (post #79)
  
  
• specific event:
  "It points to an anointing that happened before." (post #149)
  
  
• real event with no details:
  "it is real but does not give any details." (post #164)
  
  
• identifier:
  "a note to identify Mary..." (post #165)
  
  
• previous event:
  "just a previous event." (post #165)
  
  
• specific event with no details:
  "Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures." (post #251)
  
  
• not enough to be an identifier:
  "There is not enough there to be an identifier. I told you that from the get go." (post #286)
  
  
• latest interpretation:
  "This scripture does not point to a specific event, just Mary the sister of Lazarus anointed Yeshua's feet with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair." (post #286)

Now you're saying:

"This scripture does not point to a specific event, just Mary the sister of Lazarus anointed Yeshua's feet with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair." (post #295)

The issue is not whether this latest interpretation is right or wrong.
The issue is your claim that you have always held the same interpretation of John 11:2.
The documented record shows that you have not.
That is not what you have said "from the get go." It is simply your latest interpretation.

...the changes were about accuracy for those that were reading.

If the changes were merely for accuracy, then why did they alter the substance of the claims being made?

Changing:

"They are two separate accounts..."

to:

"They are three separate accounts..."

is not a spelling, grammar, or formatting correction.

And changing:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events..."

to:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events... and one note of a previous anointing"

is not a correction of an error in wording.
Those edits changed the claims themselves.
They were also made after the original statements had already been quoted and discussed.
If the purpose was simply accuracy, why were only the posts creating contradictions edited, while contemporaneous posts reflecting the original position were left unchanged?

As far as you and your belief that Mary Magdalene was the repentant whore or all the same person, I did not defeat you the scriptures defeated you and you gave up.

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need for you to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to offer multiple, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.
The documented record speaks for itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

You previously said:

• non‑specific event:
  "No specific event given." (post #79)
  
  
• specific event:
  "It points to an anointing that happened before." (post #149)
  
  
• real event with no details:
  "it is real but does not give any details." (post #164)
  
  
• identifier:
  "a note to identify Mary..." (post #165)
  
  
• previous event:
  "just a previous event." (post #165)
  
  
• specific event with no details:
  "Specific event that is not detail elsewhere in the scriptures." (post #251)
  
  
• not enough to be an identifier:
  "There is not enough there to be an identifier. I told you that from the get go." (post #286)
  
  
• latest interpretation:
  "This scripture does not point to a specific event, just Mary the sister of Lazarus anointed Yeshua's feet with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair." (post #286)

I agree with all that......But thats all that John 11:2 says, specific event with no details. Nothing to point to another scripture.

 

[Grailhunter]

That is not what you have said "from the get go." It is simply your latest interpretation.

I have never said it pointed to another scripture.....The scripture says what it says.

 

[Grailhunter]

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need for you to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to offer multiple, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.
The documented record speaks for itself.

Again and again and again the conversation expanded and the edits were for accuracy. The scriptures did defeat you. I post scriptures and all you do is complain about the conversation and ask the same questions over and over again.

 

[Moonwood]

...the conversation expanded

Nobody disputes that the conversation expanded.
The issue is that your position expanded with it.
The record shows your anointing count changed from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four.
That is a change in position, not merely an expansion of the conversation.

...the edits were for accuracy.

The issue is not whether you believed the edits improved accuracy.
The issue is that the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Changing:

"They are two separate accounts..."

to:

"They are three separate accounts..."

is not a spelling, grammar, or formatting correction.

And changing:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events..."

to:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events... and one note of a previous anointing"

is not a correction of wording.

Those edits changed the claims themselves.
They were also made after the original statements had already been quoted and discussed.
Whether you believed the edits improved accuracy does not change the fact that they altered your previously stated positions.

I agree with all that...

Then we're in agreement that you have presented multiple different interpretations of John 11:2 throughout this discussion.
The problem has never been whether you made those statements. The problem is that they are not the same interpretation.
Perhaps the next step is to choose one and stick with it.

The scriptures did defeat you.

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need for you to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to offer multiple, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.

The documented record speaks for itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

Nobody disputes that the conversation expanded.
The issue is that your position expanded with it.
The record shows your anointing count changed from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four.
That is a change in position, not merely an expansion of the conversation.

My position did not change. I contend that Mary Magdelene was not the repentant whore. I included other scriptures regarding the anointings. No position change just other scriptures.