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

[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

 

[Moonwood]

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

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

 

[Grailhunter]

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

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

I argue that these three women are best understood as one and the same person. The identification is supported by narrative continuity, distinctive repeated gestures, geographical plausibility, and the long-standing interpretive tradition of the Church.

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.

 

[Moonwood]

And no, we were not talking about the four anointings to begin with.

That's not an answer to the question.

I asked you:

Are you committing to four aniontings?

In reply, you answered:

Commit is not the right term... they were always there.

In reply, I asked:

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

Are you, or are you not?

Copied from post 251
It is a specific event that is not detailed else where in the scriptures.

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

 

[Grailhunter]

That's not an answer to the question.

I asked you:

That is the only answer you are going to get.

 

[Grailhunter]

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

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

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

 

[Moonwood]

That is the only answer you are going to get.

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)

This edit was made to avoid a contradiction I documented."

Copied from post 251
It is a specific event that is not detailed else where in the scriptures.

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

 

[Grailhunter]

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​

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 anointing, probably after I mentioned "the Muddle of the Marys"

Again posts 191 and 246 answered your questions, you just do not like the answers