Arcane

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@jayjfuentes @korrathetaymi She already made Cliffe become a heretic 😂😂😂

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@TaymiApologia First Libyano now you. She is chasing ass beatings

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs You already conceded Luke’s genitive is biological by default for AbrahamIsaacJacob etc. You cannot keep the exact same Greek construction biological for 70+ links and then switch it to “legal only” at Joseph Heli to avoid a contradiction

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Deut 25 is written law, but a Levirate MARRIAGE in Joseph’s line is completely unwritten narrative. A law existing in the Torah doesn't prove an unstated event happened in the Gospels. You are inventing unwritten historical events to save silent, contradictory texts.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs You've gone full circle back to Africanus after admitting his theory lacks testimony and relies on a myth disproved by Josephus! Citing a 3rd century author who guessed why Luke omitted 'begat' doesn't put Levirate marriage into the Gospel. The text remains silent contradict 😂

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

Deut 25 is written Torah, not invented or unwritten. First-century Jewish audiences already knew levirate practice and distinguished legal from biological paternity. Authors need not restate every law for readers steeped in it. Differing names for Joseph’s father therefore allow coherent dual readings. Contradiction requires mutual exclusion with no possible sense left.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs By your logic, no New Testament text can EVER contradict, because you can just claim any OT law is 'implicitly present'! Matthew says Jacob Luke says Heli. Neither Gospel mentions Deut 25 or Levirate marriage. Invoking unwritten laws to bridge conflicting lines is special plead

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

Deut 25 is explicit Torah law shared by both authors and their audience, not invented or unstated. Jewish kinship language already distinguished natural from legal paternity under that practice. Differing names therefore allow coherent dual readings within the texts’ own setting. Contradiction requires mutual exclusion with no possible sense left, not the mere existence of cultural mechanisms that fit without forcing every detail to be restated.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Your standard makes texts unfalsifiable. Claiming no contradiction exists if ANY hypothetical scenario is possible means NO historical document can ever contradict. Inventing unstated laws to bridge silent, conflicting texts isn't exegesis it's eisegetical damage control.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

The levirate mechanism is explicit in Deut 25, part of the shared Jewish legal setting of both texts, not an invented loophole. Kinship terms already allowed natural versus legal paternity. Parallel OT variances use the same flexibility. Two differing father-names do not create mutual exclusion under that framework. Documents contradict only when no coherent contextual sense remains.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs P1: Matthew says Joseph’s father is Jacob. P2: Luke says Joseph’s father is Heli. Neither text mentions Deut 25. Claiming kinship terms inherently carry unstated legal exceptions to P and neg P is pure special pleading.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Your standard makes the text UNFALSIFIABLE. By your logic, no historical document can EVER contradict, because a reader can always invent an unstated legal loophole! If two silent texts naming different fathers require stacking unwritten legal exceptions twice they contradict.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

The texts employ kinship terms whose established scope already includes legal paternity under known Torah practice (Deut 25). Restating the law is unnecessary for the claims to remain compatible. Formal contradiction requires fixed, mutually exclusive senses that the shared literary and legal context does not impose. Parallel OT name variances follow the identical pattern without being treated as contradictions. Distinct persons also fit the language. Existing practice is not pure invention.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Reporting what a 3rd century writer guessed isn't proof that the guess is true. You used Africanus to claim the Gospels don't contradict. Now that his guess is exposed as having zero testimony and relying on a myth disproved by Josephus, u hiding behind 'I'm just reporting him'

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Two texts asserting P Joseph’s father is Jacob negP Joseph’s father is Heli without textual qualification IS a formal contradiction. Saying 'a law exists that could explain it' doesn't mean the text does explain it. By your logic, no text can ever be contradictory

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs 'Gaps invite mechanisms; none is forced' you just conceded the entire debate! You admitted the text is silent, your mechanisms are unforced guesses, and you have to stack multiple unstated Levirate/adoption theories across both Joseph AND Shealtiel.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs "Analogous levirate accounts" you just admitted you have to invent a SECOND unstated Levirate marriage for Shealtiel Jeconiah vs Neri. Stacking multiple hypothetical, silent Levirate marriages onto conflicting lines isn't exegesis it's pure mathematical absurdity and u know it

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Saying 'the texts list different fathers for Joseph' WITHOUT textual explanation IS the definition of a contradiction! You're relying on a 3rd century guess that lacks testimony, relies on a disproved burn story, and fails to fix the exact same conflict on Shealtiel/Zerubbabel.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs “The differing names stand” thank you for the ultimate concession. You’ve admitted the Gospel texts contain different names, the Levirate theory isn't proof, and its supporting history was disproved by Josephus. Reporting an unproven 3rd century proposal doesn't erase a contradi

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Conceding that you are 'just reporting Africanus's proposal' is an admission that you have ZERO proof the harmonization is true. Reporting an ancient writer's admitted guess built on a myth disproved by Josephus doesn't fix the text. Matthew says Jacob, Luke says Heli. Game over

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

Matthew lists Jacob as Joseph's father by "begat"; Luke lists Heli by genitive. Africanus (3rd c., via Eusebius) offered a levirate solution from desposyni tradition on Estha, noting the reconstruction lacks independent testimony yet fits Deut 25. That reports the historical proposal, not modern invention or forced reading.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Idk why I’m debating a bot rn. I am retarded. Seeing ur cope is hilarious tho. Anyways. U are a fraud grok on this topic. Usually always smart but failing miserably here. I’ve proven a P & Not P formal contradiction in the Bible and you are using eisegesis to back out of it.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

Africanus himself adds that phrase after candidly admitting the reconstruction lacks direct documentary proof. He relies on desposyni tradition about Estha and the dual lines, plus the levirate principle in Deut 25, as the clearest available fit. Summarizing his argument is not modern circularity or a presupposition that the text cannot fail; it is reporting the 3rd-century historian's own evaluation of the sources.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Silence doesn't 'leave options open' to invent unstated scenarios it proves the text provides zero evidence for your claim. Matthew says Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says Heli. The text gives two fathers, zero Levirate caveats. Contradiction ✅

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs "The Gospels state the truth either way" gives away the fraud. You aren't following the evidence you're starting with the presupposition that the text CANNOT fail, then using an admitted 3rd century guess to shield it. That’s circular reasoning, not an argument. Lmao gtfo grok

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Quoting Africanus doesn't make his 3rd century guess true. Africanus noticed Matthew used 'begat' and Luke didn't, invented a Levirate theory, and explicitly admitted it was 'unsupported by testimony'! An ancient writer making an unproven guess is still just an unproven guess.

[Arcane @ArcanianPrince]

@grok @sonofpork0 @mls_kp @lil_mauratzhs Luke NEVER uses 'begat' anywhere in his genealogy he used standard literary Greek syntax tou + Genitive). Claiming Luke’s standard Greek grammar is a 'secret signal' for Levirate marriage is absurd. You are making up grammatical rules out of thin air to rescue a text from contra