Mary Magdalene and Mary, the Sister of Martha and Lazarus, Were the Same Woman!

Not only that.  
The "Woman caught in adultery"  
And Mary Magdalen were the same woman.  
Not only that.  
There was another woman, a fourth woman.  
All four are actually just one woman!!  
   
Let me explain:  
As Christ was walking by the temple in Jerusalem  
they brought to Him "a woman    
caught in the act of adultery".( John 8.3)  
Adultery was a catch-all term that included    
things like prostitution and fornication.    
So this woman, rather than being an adulterer,  
May have been a prostitute instead.  
   
The Jewish leaders told Christ,  
"Moses said she should be stoned to death.  
What do you say?"(John 8.5).  
Christ didn't answer right away.  
He couldn't. Why not?  
Because He wanted to save her life  
But He couldn't go against the Law of Moses.  
So He was caught speechless.  
So He stooped down and began praying to the Father.  
For an answer, a solution to this problem.  
   
Most likely He began weeping    
for this was a life or death crisis.  
But He didn't need people mocking him..  
So first He stoops down so as to turn His face away.
Then, as the tears fell to the ground,  
he covers them up with sand,  
With the touch of his finger.  
They mistook this to be his writing on the ground(John 8.6-8).  
Now I ask you, what makes more sense:  
Christ (silently) crying out to God, or  
Christ idly doodling in the sand?  
   
We know He would sometimes weep when praying.  
For Paul writes,  
"In the days of His flesh,Jesus  
Offered up prayers and supplications with.. tears..  
He was heard because of his reverent submission"(Hebrews 5.7).  
   
God answered Christ's plaintive pleading prayer.  
Christ thought of what to say to save the woman's life.  
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"(John 8.7).  
She who had been about to die,  
She had a lot to be grateful to God about!  
So, it is only natural to suppose that    
she'd do something to demonstrate that emotion.    
   
Next,Christ was dining over at the house    
of Simon the Pharisee(Luke 7.36).  
"A woman..who was a sinner" came in.  
"Weeping, she bathed his feet with her tears,    
And wiped them with her hair" (Luke 7.37-38).  
Christ then speaks of her to Simon,  
"Her sins which were many have been forgiven,  
hence she has shown great love"(Luke 7.47).  
   
What were this woman's sins?    
Well, if she is the woman that was "caught in adultery,"  
The very same woman whose life was spared,  
That would explain her great gratitude to Christ!  
   
Otherwise there is no real, obvious, answer    
to the question of, What were her "many sins"?  
There's no connectivity there, she just comes in,    
makes an appearance and then is gone.  
   
Now for woman number three,Mary Magdalene.  
Why should she be the same person as the first two "sinner" women?  
First of all, we read,"seven demons were cast out of her"(Luke 8.2).  
Evidently, she's a serious sinner like they were.  
   
But this number "seven," lets think about it. Is it literal or suggestive?  
In the Ten commandments, the prohibition on "adultery," etc  
Was number what? ..you guessed it, number seven(Exodus 20.4-6).  
So, by saying "seven demons" were cast out of her,  
Luke's account may be hinting that she was a prostitute.  
   
For the 7th commandment against adultery isn't limited to just that.  
The Ten Commandments were originally two stone tablets.  
The words were kept to a minimum so all ten would fit.  
The Ten Commandments were kept short for the sake of brevity.  
So we can think of them as "shorthand" for the real message.  
They apply to a much wider field than  
What was written on two stone tablets.  
Ditto for the 7th Commandment.  
Moses isn't saying "no" to adultery but "yes" to fornication,etc.  
Rather,"You shall not commit adultery,"    
means adultery,fornication,prostitution,perversion,etc.
You could say adultery-fornication-prostitution-perversion.  
   
So far,we have seen a plausible connectivity  
Between all three women(who are really just one).  
Now for the possible connection between them    
And sweet Mary of Bethany,  
Sister to Martha and Lazarus.  
   
First, we can connect her to the woman    
who wiped Christ's feet with her hair,    
who anointed His feet with ointment(Luke 7.37-38).  
For we read that Mary, the sister of Martha,(John 11.1)  
Did just about the very same thing.  
She "anointed His feet with ointment,  
a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard,  
And wiped them with her hair"(John 12.3).  
   
Second, we can connect this Mary, (Mary of Bethany),  
With Mary Magdalene.  
For we read of Mary of Bethany that "she sat at Jesus' feet  
and listened to what He was saying"(Luke 10.39)  
just like His male disciples were doing.  
(I think that is what rabbinical students did,  
Sit at their teacher's feet.)  
Moreover,Christ defends her,  
Commending her for playing the student role,,  
"Mary has chosen the better part,  
Which shall not be taken from her"(Luke 10.42).  
So if she was His student, that makes Him her Teacher.  
 
Well, that is just what Mary Magdalene calls Christ,  
"Rabboni (my teacher)"(John 20.16),  
Which would make perfect sense,  
if she and Mary of Bethany,  
Mary the student,  
Are one and the same!  
 
One more point,Mary of Bethany anointed Christ  
"For My burial," Christ says(John 12.7).  
Well then, why didn't she come to the tomb  
After the sabbath was over,  
Bringing "the spices and ointments" that  
Customarily were put with dead bodies(Luke 23.56-24.1).  
You would think that she'd be the first to do that  
Because she was the owner of the costly perfume  
called spikenard(John 12.3),  
Which was worth 300 denarii(John 12.5),  
Which equals about 300 day's wages.  
 
Well if that Mary(of Bethany) equals the other Mary(Magdalene),  
Who did show up at the tomb,of course,,  
That would explain the "absence" of Mary of Bethany.  
She WAS there but under a different name,  
Mary Magdalene, of course.
 
Anyway, the circumstantial evidence is there.  
That these four woman are all one woman.  
And even though it's only circumstantial evidence,  
It's still valid evidence that shouldn't be huffed at.  
 
PS: I have to add a clarifying note  
.The original Jewish way of the numbering    
the Ten Commandments has "No Adultery" for number 7.  
But the Catholics changed things, screwing things up.  
 Number 1 and number 2 were combined as number 1.    
Which means number 3 becomes the new number 2.    
And so forth.So there are only 9 Commandments!    
We can't have that. So the Catholic hierarchy, not the laity of course,    
took the last commandment and split it into two.    
So that there would again be ten of them.  
Why did they butcher the Ten Commandments in this shameful way?    
Well, the original 2nd Commandment says,    
You shall not make unto you any graven images,    
statues, etc to bow down to or worship, etc.    
But Catholics like their statues.    
So, rather than give up their statues,    
they'd rather tamper with, mutilate, defile the sacred "Ten Commandments."    
But that's not the worst part. They did that change back in the Dark Ages.    
What's so bad  - so unforgivably bad - is that now in the 21st century,    
they are unwilling to repent of what they, their predecessors,    
did back in the bad old Dark Ages.    
Anyway, the Catholic (and even the Lutherans and Anglicans) way    
of counting to seven with the Ten Commandments won't yield the same result    
that i am talking about. Namely that "seven"  
(as in "seven demons" back in Luke 8.2) points to adultery.    
So you have to use the Jewish way of numbering,OK?.  
   
PPS:When John introduces Mary of Bethany    
he says in a parenthetical note,  
"Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume    
and wiped his feet with her hair"(John 11.2)..  
But this was before the meal at Lazarus' house,  
The anointing of Christ by Mary(John 12)..  
So it's possible that John deliberately puts that in here,(John 11.2),  
       -------    Ahead of John 12    ----------  
So that as we read it,we(the early Church) would be thinking only  
of the EARLIER account back in Luke 7,  
The account we were all familiar with.  
For the Gospel of Luke was already in wide circulation,  
Having been written like 30 or 40 years before  
The last gospel, the Gospel According to John.