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

[Grailhunter]

Saying you will ignore the rest of the post doesn’t resolve the contradictions — it just avoids them.

correct.....Told you to stop posting large posts. It gets too messy.

 

[Grailhunter]

And your new “four anointings” claim only exists because you split John 12 from Matthew 26 / Mark 14 — even though those passages describe the same Bethany anointing.

I did not slit chapters.

 

[Grailhunter]

Before we proceed any further, you must commit to

Stop posting large posts.

 

[Grailhunter]

In post #191 (October 5), you introduced four anointings for the first time:

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

Guilty as charged.

 

[Grailhunter]

The discussion cannot continue until you provide direct, text‑based answers to the questions above and commit to one count of anointings and one interpretation of John 11:2. No new claims, no retroactive edits, no redefinitions. Choose one option, cite the passages that support it, and stand by it. Only then can we move forward.

Post 191 answers all these posts.
And I do not care if the discussion continues.

 

[Moonwood]

Stop posting large posts.

The size of the post is not the issue. The issue is that you have made multiple contradictory claims, changed your positions repeatedly, and rewritten past posts after they were quoted. Ignoring the contradictions does not resolve them.

Post 191 answers all these posts.

And post #192 shows exactly why post #191 does not. It introduces new contradictions, changes your claims again, and still does not provide the commitments required.

I do not care if the discussion continues.

If you truly don’t care whether the discussion continues, then there is no reason for you to avoid answering the following questions. You can simply choose one of the options, cite your passages, and be done. Avoiding the questions while claiming not to care only highlights the contradictions you’re trying not to confront.


1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

 

[Grailhunter]

The size of the post is not the issue. The issue is that you have made multiple contradictory claims, changed your positions repeatedly, and rewritten past posts after they were quoted. Ignoring the contradictions does not resolve them.

No contradictory claims.
I don't make claims. Unlike you, if I say something it is in the scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

And post #192 shows exactly why post #191 does not. It introduces new contradictions, changes your claims again, and still does not provide the commitments required.

Just more information.....all still biblical.

 

[Grailhunter]

If you truly don’t care whether the discussion continues, then there is no reason for you to avoid answering the following questions. You can simply choose one of the options, cite your passages, and be done. Avoiding the questions while claiming not to care only highlights the contradictions you’re trying not to confront.

Post 191 answers all your questions.

 

[Moonwood]

Post 191 answers all your questions.

Post #191 was supposed to resolve your contradictions I laid out in post #168, not the questions — and posts #192 and #199 show exactly why post #191 does not resolve them. It introduces new contradictions, changes your claims again, and still does not provide the commitments required.

The questions from post #200 have not been answered:

1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

 

[Grailhunter]

Post #191 was supposed to resolve your contradictions I laid out in post #168, not the questions — and posts #192 and #199 show exactly why post #191 does not resolve them. It introduces new contradictions, changes your claims again, and still does not provide the commitments required.

The questions from post #200 have not been answered:

1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

All questions in post 200 are answered in post 191

 

[Moonwood]

All questions in post 200 are answered in post 191

The following questions were asked after post #191 was submitted.
You cannot claim to have answered them before they were asked.

So the questions remain unanswered:

1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

 

[Grailhunter]

The following questions were asked after post #191 was submitted.
You cannot claim to have answered them before they were asked.

So the questions remain unanswered:

1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

Looked them over and they are all answered in post 191.
If you see one let me know.

 

[Moonwood]

...they are all answered in post 191.

The following questions were asked after post #191 was submitted.
Therefore, you could not have answered them before they existed.

1. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  
• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

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

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.

Going with Matthew 26:1-3 and Mark 14:1-9 are two days before Passover and John 12:1-11 is 6 days before Passover. So they happened at different times.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4

They did not evolve they were always there. Our conversation expanded from the sinful woman and Mary Magdalene. Then I considered John 11:2
Now in Mark and Matthew she anoints Yeshua's head in John she anoints His feet. I do not think that Mark and Matthew are two different anointing because they both occur two days before Passover.

 

[Grailhunter]

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.

I don't think John was kidding about John 11:2, so it was a real event with no details. You keep talking about no details you can read it yourself, it has no details.
Now could it be referring to John 12:1-11, they are both talking about anointing his feet with her hair?Well no because John 12 happens after this event.

 

[Moonwood]

1A. You must explain:

• Why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event, and later split them into two separate events.
  
  

  Going with Matthew 26:1-3 and Mark 14:1-9 are two days before Passover and John 12:1-11 is 6 days before Passover. So they happened at different times.

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:

Two Different Anointings​

1. Luke 7:36–50 – The “Sinful Woman”
   • Occurs in Galilee, about a year before the crucifixion.
   • The woman is publicly known as a sinner and anoints Jesus’ feet with perfume, weeping and wiping them with her hair
   • Her act is a public expression of repentance and devotion, and Jesus forgives her and declares her love.
   • Luke does not name her; tradition often links her to Mary Magdalene, but the text does not say so
2. 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.
   • John explicitly identifies her as the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 11:2)
   • She anoints Jesus’ feet (or body, depending on the Gospel) with costly perfume and wipes them with her hair.
   • The text never calls her a sinner; her act is portrayed as an intimate, sacrificial act of worship

Your new explanation only describes your current position.
It does not explain your original position or why you changed it.

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]

1B. You must explain:

• Why the number of anointings evolved from 2 → 3 → 3+1 → 4
  
  

  They did not evolve they were always there. Our conversation expanded from the sinful woman and Mary Magdalene. Then I considered John 11:2
  Now in Mark and Matthew she anoints Yeshua's head in John she anoints His feet. I do not think that Mark and Matthew are two different anointing because they both occur two days before Passover.

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]

3. Commit to ONE of the following interpretations of John 11:2, and cite the passage(s) that support your choice:

• Non-specific event
  a. John 11:2 refers to a previous non‑specific anointing event – no details, no location, no timeline, no scriptural reference.
  
  
• Specific event
  b. John 11:2 refers to a previous specific anointing event – a real event with identifiable details, a setting, and Jesus present.
  
  
• No event
  c. John 11:2 refers to no event at all and functions only as a character note – merely identifying Lazarus's sister Mary with no reference to any anointing event.
  
  

  I don't think John was kidding about John 11:2, so it was a real event with no details. You keep talking about no details you can read it yourself, it has no details.
  Now could it be referring to John 12:1-11, they are both talking about anointing his feet with her hair?Well no because John 12 happens after this event.

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

• 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.

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