Friday, October 31, 2025

Lucira the "Pocket sized PCR Lab" for $29.99. Discover the truth about PCR testing and what it may mean for everyone testing positive. No longer is a sophisticated million dollar machine required for testing.

 Sometime ago I found out about a pocket sized PCR thermocycler that ran on two AA batteries called Lucira that was made by Pfizer. I thought it was so hilarious the juxtaposition of trying to convince people that the PCR was some highly sophisticated Laboratory technique that only the Priests in White Coats could conduct behind closed doors with their PhDs, whilst simultaneously rolling out a handheld one that runs on a couple of Duracells.

So colour me shocked when I discovered that it wasn’t just the PCR that was being reduced to Pint-sized Plastic form, but it was indeed the supposed bastion of the genetics world, a Nanopore Sequencer. Some of these claimed highly sophisticated machines cost up to $1m and can be the size of an American Fridge Freezer, but yet they are now trying to claim that this tech can be condensed into the size of a handheld unit that is powered by a USB C cable.

A Nanopore Sequencer circa 2024:

The All new Nanopore Sequencer (Macbook not included):

Say HI! to the minION Nanopore sequencer. It’s the size of and looks like a stapler, but actually it is going to sequencer your (non existent) genetics with the longest read lengths known to man. Now this machine is funny not only because they are lifting the veil that their super dooper tech is actually so shit it can be condensed into looking like a piece of stationary, but more than that, in fact WAY more, is that they actively tell you what they are measuring, right in your face, right in the very name: minION

THEY ARE MEASURING CHARGE

Anyone that has followed the Virology Control Studies project for any length of time will be very aware of the conclusion that I have given as to What the PCR is really testing for? If not please follow the link to the article. The quick conclusion is that the PCR IS measuring charge, this is inferred (and I hate that it has to be inferred, which you will find out why later on in this article) from the fact that the PCR is confirmed with Gel Electrophoresis which IS measuring charge. It is a logical conclusion because any erroneous results in PCR MUST be confirmed with Gel Electrophoresis.

With minION they have removed all doubt, there is no indirect inferences needed, they actively tell you that they are measuring charge. An electrically resistant membrane with a bunch of tiny holes in it measures the change in voltage as a sample runs through it. The tiny differences in voltage is interpreted totally In Silico, i.e computer generated to give a readout. That is it. That is ALL there is to this supposedly incredible modern technology that they can do all of the mesmerizing things they claim with genetic engineering of plant and animal life (That they are actually talking bollocks about).

It begins and ends there, that is the amount of actual tangible results that should be gleaned from this, when you squirt a liquid obtained from some living organism through a membrane it has some variable charge that seems to form a pattern. End of story. Finito.

INFERENCE

I will take this opportunity to teach this one, very powerful premise, that is relatively easy to understand but empowers you to cut through the bullshit of the entirety of “Bio”Chemistry and indeed most of modern science. Once you fully understand this cheap magic trick, the thinly veiled facade of modern science crumbles like the walls of Rome and turns to dust.

I will bore you a little with my wrestling with Grok as an example of both what I mean, AND how much this magic trick is being protected by the establishment (who code these AI programmes).

So here we see that Grok desperately wants to try and cover up the fact that at the very heart of Genetic Sequencing is complete Vaporware, arrows pointing toward each other and then in opposite directions, follow any one of the paths that claim there is an actual physical benchmark to validated the results against and it ends up being an Inference.

This is the dictionary definition of circular reasoning, a shell game, where they lift up the cup to reveal nothing at the end of what it means to infer something from an Ionic Current in Nanopore, point at Fluorescence being a definite concrete marker, only to, when pressured, admit that Fluorescence, obviously, is also just inferred.

The fact that these adjacent “Technologies” seem to all co-exist but have identical methods of faking causality suggests that this really is purposeful bafflement, a huge Tsunami sized smoke screen wall, to confuse any onlookers and those that are only willing to do cursory searches for the foundational validation of these witchcraft-esq machines. Why would you continually need to invent new markers that supposedly indicate something if the first one you came up with worked? Well, we all should know why, because give it enough time and so many Janky results come out that even the heavily indoctrinated start to question the validity of the utensils in the lab.

Here we see two lab techs comfortable opening up about their frustrations with why they can’t get the results they need/want/get paid for out of their PCR machines, describing it as “witchcraft” and “moody”. Well this is the thing, there will be mutterings along these lines for a few years, then enough people will turn over the cards that *THIS* version of PCR is shit and unreliable, so incomes RT-QPCR to take over with its all new fluorescent light display. That gets user tested, people eventually find out is is just as shit and the cycle repeats.

Why is an Inference so bad?

Here’s the thing, they want this to seem like I am being over sensitive, throwing the baby out with the bathwater of human progress. But Jamie, you are just trying to be obtuse because it makes for good reading and click bait. No No, The reason why they want you to give them leeway, is because unless the curtain is fully drawn back, the cardboard cutout and the midget pulling the levers on the smoke machine is there, but you can only see their legs. You could still *Infer* that those little legs were not that of Mark the Dwarf of Oz but of a normally sized man standing further back than you originally thought and their frantic shuffling was not them pulling the levers of a giant distraction smoke screen, but indeed because they desperately needed the toilet.

When you have one Inference it is OK to build upon it or take it somewhat for granted. The cockerel is crowing in the morning is a safe inference that the Sun is rising. You can hear the cockerel crowing without having to see the sun rising , to be fairly certain and make an educated assumption that the sun is rising. This is predicated on concrete and tangible and repeated occurrences where cockerels and the sun exist, cockerels can be observed to crow at the sun rising and they do it repeatedly every morning.

Now Cockerels are known to also crow at just intermittent changes in artificial light, like the headlights of cars, LED Floodlights, so on and so forth. So even with all other certainties involved in this cause and effect happening, an inference is still not a great marker.

When in the case of say RT-QPCR you cross reference it with this same analogy you get something like this:

The Crowing = The Fluorescent Light the only tangible thing, fluorescent lights do occur, however this is not a natural thing seen to occur in the experiment, it is a fluorescent dye extracted and excited on purpose.

The Cockerel= Target genetics of a virus. This has never been shown to exist and only inferred.

The Sun= The PCR machine and all of the reagents. These are tangible real things, metal and LED lights and electrical power-source and powders and plastic tubes. However every single part of this is Inferred to cause the Cockerel to Crow. The big giveaway here is that there is a few components namely the electricity and the LEDS which on their own, without any Cockerel, can Crow, because these on their own can excite a fluorescent dye, the reason why they don’t always do it however, is also inferred.

We could go through every single moving part of this process and list the inferences, for sake of brevity and boredom I will list just a few and let you get the idea:

Heating a sample cause DNA to split into strands, Cooling makes them reform, Enzymes can choose where and when to join nucleotides together or cut them apart, Fluorescent dyes can attach to certain nucleotides, quenchers likewise, DNA can have copies of itself and amplify billions of times etc etc etc.

ALL of these, if I really sat there and wasted my time, thousands of assumptions/inference are based on ONE thing, a fluorescent light fluorescing, according to mainstream science it is not possible to see any of these things happening at any stage of the process at any time, in real-time, stationary or moving.

NANODWARF SEQUENCING

So I want to fully ram home the dangers of Inferences to logic and reality by taking the entire Nanopore Sequencing story but inserting different inferences into the gaps where the mainstream inferences are:

NanoDwarfs are found in every cell in our body, they are present in their billions, they are so numerate that if you took every NanoDwarf in your body and put them end on end they’d reach to Pluto and back 6 times. But you can’t see them, at all, they are invisible to any sort of microscope, because they are camera shy.

These NanoDwarfs hold hands and form tiny little chains, these patterns in these chains determine our entire existence, from our eye colour, to our height to potentially how long we will live for, they do this because the songs they sing make your red blood cells dance (although it is an asymptomatic dance). The Dwarfs like to hold hands because they are homosexual, however Adam and Trevor are in a couple as are Colin and Geoff. They will hold hands with each other but only face each other if they are in a couple.

NanoDwarfs sequencing takes a very expensive, highly sophisticated, sensitive and accurate machine that can give a readout to the exact Dwarf of the four Dwarfs (Adam, Trevor, Geoff and Colin) that make up our Dwarfnetics and why we are what we are. We can read our NanoDwarf sequence because their beards are electrically charged with static electricity from wearing polyester Lederhosen. We put Bratwurst on one side of a NanoDwarf membrane with holes in it the exact size of their bellies. When the NanoDwarfs are hungry they go through the NanoHoles to eat the Bratwurst and the Static Electricity from their beards rubs against our sensor probes.

Adam has a Red beard, Colin has a Yellow beard, Tevor has a Green beard and Geoff has a Blue beard. The amounts of static electricity differ ever so slightly in each of their beards so when they pass through our sensors you get a read out that a computer can interpret the NanoDwarf sequence, seen below:

Trevor,Geoff,Adam,Adam,Adam,Colin,Geoff,Colin,Trevor,Adam,Adam,Colin,Adam,Adam,Adam,Trevor,Geoff,Adam,Trevor,Colin,Geoff.

That’s the technical readout of this sequence (I only wrote it because it’ll be hilarious to hear the Substack AI voice read it out).

This is a computer image of the moment the electricity comes from Geoff’s Beard.

We can build the computer models of Geoff’s Beard energy above because we have performed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of isolated and purified NanoDwarfs - that we assumed were in a test tube. As we can see from the image below (Please ignore the caption saying it is RNA Polymerase, that is just some bullshit) we can clearly see this is the zoomed in curly hairs of Geoff’s Blue Beard.

Conclusion

We have seen that they now have pocket sized Nanopore Sequencers. Expect that once we debunk the PCR as any sort of legitimate tool for finding anything that they will just start making these handheld sequencers more and more plasticky, cheaper and cheaper until you can do home sequencing tests. Have a dribbly nose and a scratchy throat? Self sequence and find out if you do actually have a dribbly nose and a scratchy throat.

I am glad however, that the large curtains have been drawn all the way back and the naked truth has been thrust into the spotlight, yes THEY ARE MEASURING CHARGE. We have also seen, when we know what questions to ask and areas to probe that we can back AI into a corner to admit that it is all just Inference.

Hopefully I have adequately displayed that Inference is a dangerous and totally anti-reality tool utilized to the full extent by modern science. Once something is predicated solely on tests and third party diagnostics, you are only limited by your imagination, I could write an entire Encyclopedia on Nanodwarfs based on the sole metric of charge registered in a machine, as that is all they have done with “Bio”Chemistry. It is just as likely that the Minion Nanopore Sequencer is actually measuring the Static electricity put out by the the beards of Nanodwarfs. Hehere is as much evidence of NanoDwarfs as there are of Nucleotides, prove me wrong.

The Virology Controls Studies Project

 by Jamie Andrews

Friday, October 17, 2025

The Three Continuums: Priesthood, Interpretation, and Mysticism. Discover how priestly hierarchy, rabbinic law, and mystical experience each preserved divine truth after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE.

Abstract

The destruction of Jerusalem’s Temple in 70 CE marked not only the collapse of Israel’s ritual center but also the fragmentation of its spiritual ecology. Three survival logics emerged from the ruins:

  1. The Sadducean Continuum, translating priestly literalism into ecclesiastical hierarchy.

  2. The Rabbinic Continuum, transforming the altar into text through interpretive law.

  3. The Mystical Continuum, relocating the Divine Presence into the purified heart.
    Together they reveal how truth (Aletheia—un-concealment) persists not through permanence but through translation: from Temple → Church → Empire, from altar → page → soul.


The Sadducean Continuum 

Historical Core

After 70 CE, the Temple elite—the Sadducean priesthood—vanished as a public class. Yet their administrative discipline, wealth, and ethos of literal, hereditary authority did not disappear. Through diaspora and Roman assimilation, those same structural instincts re-emerged within imperial Christianity. The pattern was transmutation, not extinction: TempleCuria, High PriestPontifex Maximus, sacrificeEucharist.

Structural Translation

AxisTempleChurchEmpireAletheian Note
PriesthoodZadokite lineageApostolic successionImperial bureaucracyAuthority shifts from bloodline → appointment
SanctuaryHoly of HoliesAltar / tabernaclePalace / throne roomHoliness becomes architectural power
SacrificeAnimal offeringsEucharistic memorialTribute / taxMaterial → symbolic → economic
Scripture / LawWritten TorahCanon + MagisteriumCivil CodeScroll → codex → code
TreasuryTemple titheChurch patrimonyFiscus + papal statesSacred wealth secularized
IdeologyCovenant nationUniversal salvationDivine mandate of ruleElection becomes universality

Interpretation

The Sadducean Continuum embodies institutional adaptation without interpretive renewal. Authority survived, but meaning ossified. Their mistake was confusing stability with truth—revelation frozen becomes idolatry of form. ¹


The Rabbinic Continuum 

Historical Core

While the priesthood perished, the Pharisaic-Rabbinic current reinvented Torah. At Yavneh, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai transformed sacrifice into study, priesthood into scholarship, and altar into scroll. Interpretation—midrash, halakhah, debate—became the lifeblood of continuity.

Mechanism of Survival

Structural NeedTemple SolutionRabbinic Replacement
AtonementSacrificePrayer / repentance / charity
AuthorityHereditary priestOrdained sage (semikhah)
SanctuaryTempleSynagogue / study-house
LawWritten Torah onlyDual Torah (Written + Oral)
EconomyTithesCommunal funds / endowments
InterpretationRitual precedentDialectical reasoning (machloket)

Textual Anchors

Deut 17 : 11; Exod 18 : 20; Mishnah Avot 1 : 1; Berakhot 8a—each re-centers revelation in communal reasoning. The Talmudic dictum “Since the day the Temple was destroyed, God has nothing in His world but the four cubits of halakhah” redefines sacred space as interpretive space. ²

Interpretation

Where II-C preserved order, II-D preserved meaning. Rabbinic Judaism became a textual civilization—a republic of argument sustained by memory and commentary. It democratized holiness: the scholar replaced the priest; literacy became liturgy. ³


The Mystical Continuum 

Historical Core

A third stream internalized the Temple entirely. When altar and academy both risked rigidity, mystics turned inward, seeking the Shekinah in consciousness itself. This contemplative tradition—Jewish Merkavah → Kabbalah; Christian Desert → Hesychasm → Carmelite reform—kept revelation alive through transformation rather than structure.

Mechanism of Survival

FunctionTempleRabbinicMysticalAletheian Note
PresenceShekinah in sanctuaryShekinah in textShekinah in heartHoliness portable
AtonementAnimal sacrificeRepentance / studyInner conversion / unionSacrifice of ego
AuthorityPriestRabbiSpiritual guideVerification by virtue
TransmissionLineageOrdinationMaster–disciple charismChain of experience
Failure ModeFormalismLegalismQuietismEach corrects the others

Epistemology of Experience

The mystical current unites apophatic humility with moral verification: God known by un-knowing yet evidenced by transformed life. Vision replaces ritual; virtue replaces rank. The person becomes the micro-Temple—the living sanctuary of Aletheia. ⁴


Dialectical Synthesis — The Triad in Mirror
DimensionII-C SadduceanII-D RabbinicII-E MysticalAletheian Reading
Mode of PreservationInstitutional translationInterpretive adaptationExperiential transformationTruth survives by metamorphosis
MediumHierarchyTextInterior illuminationOffice ↔ Discourse ↔ Presence
Power BaseWealth / officeKnowledge / consensusHoliness / charismThree energies of continuity
Failure ModeFossilizationScholasticismEnthusiasmEach needs the others’ restraint
Civilizational GiftOrderMeaningFireOffice guards form; law guards word; mysticism guards flame

Aletheian Insight

Institutions perish when they mistake stability for truth. They endure when they reinterpret their covenant with time.

The priest preserved the form, the rabbi preserved the word, the mystic preserved the fire. Between them, revelation learned to migrate—first into empire, then into text, finally into soul. Aletheia is not possession but unveiling; it is history’s way of ensuring that what once was holy remains discoverable.


Conclusion

The three continuums—Sadducean, Rabbinic, Mystical—constitute a single arc of divine pedagogy. Each arose from loss; each transmuted catastrophe into continuity. When read together, they offer a theology of historical metabolism: hierarchy without interpretation dies; interpretation without experience desiccates; experience without discipline burns out. Truth endures only where the three converse.


Notes

  1. Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.8.14; Acts 23:8; cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini I–III; Jerome, Ep. 146 “To Evangelus.”
  2. Mishnah Avot 1:1; Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 8a; Judah ha-Nasi, Mishnah (ca. 200 CE); see also Jacob Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago, 1981).
  3. Deuteronomy 17:11; Exodus 18:20; Josephus Antiquities 20; Martin Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth (New York, 2001).
  4. Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology I–V; Evagrius Ponticus, Praktikos 90; Sefer Yetzirah 1:1; Zohar I (13b–14a); Gregory Palamas, Triads I.3; John of the Cross, Dark Night II.20.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

The Fear of Finding Noah’s Ark: Why Academia Resists Its Own Discoveries. Why do scientists and scholars recoil from the possibility that Noah’s Ark might be real? This article explores the psychological, historical, and ideological fears that keep academia from confronting evidence buried beneath Mount Ararat.

A Mountain of Evidence, a Wall of Silence

High in the mountains of eastern Turkey, near the Durupınar formation, researchers continue to uncover clues that suggest something extraordinary lies beneath the soil: a boat-shaped structure, fossilized under volcanic rock and mudflow, that matches the dimensions of Noah’s Ark described in Genesis. 

Despite decades of radar imaging, chemical sampling, and geological surveys, academia remains conspicuously silent. The mystery persists not only in the earth but in the psychology of those who refuse to look.

Why? Because if the Ark were real, it would mean that Scripture had outlasted skepticism.

Paradigms Protect Themselves

In theory, science is self-correcting; in practice, it is self-preserving. Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions observed that entrenched paradigms do not die through persuasion but attrition.

For centuries, the flood narrative has been treated as allegory. To admit its historicity would fracture the pillars of uniformitarian geology, secular anthropology, and the long timeline of human evolution. The instinct is defensive: protect the paradigm, not the possibility. Thus, the easiest way to discredit any inconvenient discovery is to label it “pseudoscience.” The word acts not as evidence but as an exorcism.

The Politics of Reputation

Academic orthodoxy is rarely overturned by evidence; it is policed by reputation. A geologist who suggests a global flood risks losing funding. An archaeologist who entertains biblical data risks ridicule.

David Fasold, who initially argued that the Durupınar site was indeed the Ark, later withdrew under immense professional pressure. Ron Wyatt, who produced chemical and radar data consistent with decayed timber and metallic artifacts, was branded a crank — not because his tests were disproven, but because he refused to recant.

In this inversion of integrity, those who risk the field are mocked, while those who hide behind desks are hailed as “rational.” The armchair expert has replaced the explorer.

The Psychological Barrier — Fear of the Supernatural

The resistance is not only intellectual; it is spiritual. If the Flood was real, divine judgment was real. And if divine judgment was real, moral accountability is real.

Modern academia, founded on secular humanism, cannot admit this without implosion. To concede one verified miracle is to reopen the door to all miracles.

Hence, disbelief becomes a form of self-protection. The myth must remain a myth — not because evidence is lacking, but because the alternative would demand repentance.

In that sense, skepticism functions as faith in unbelief — a metaphysical commitment to naturalism masquerading as neutrality.

When Science Forgets to Be Curious

True science follows the data wherever it leads. Yet, in the case of the Ark, the very people who demand evidence refuse to inspect it.

Ground-penetrating radar surveys show parallel, deck-like layers; soil chemistry reveals triple the organic content of surrounding earth; resistivity scans expose rectangular cavities beneath the surface. But rather than investigate, critics default to ridicule.

To dismiss evidence without testing it is not science — it is ideology. Science that refuses to look has ceased to be scientific.

The Cost of Recantation

To be proven wrong about Noah’s Ark would not merely wound pride; it would rewrite the story of human history.

If the Ark were authentic, secular cosmology would have to admit catastrophic interruption — divine intervention within natural law. The narrative of gradual evolution would give way to one of moral catastrophe and covenant.

The cost of such a paradigm shift is more than professional; it is existential. For the modern scholar, to recant unbelief would be to confess that the faith once mocked was right all along.

History Repeats Itself

Ridicule has always preceded revelation.

  • In the 1700s, scientists denied meteorites could fall from the sky — “rocks cannot come from space.”
  • In the 1800s, Heinrich Schliemann was derided for believing Homer’s Iliad pointed to a real Troy — until he dug it up.
  • In the 1900s, the Dead Sea Scrolls were dismissed as forgeries before reshaping biblical scholarship.

Each time, orthodoxy resisted until the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore. The same could happen at Durupınar.

The Case for Excavation

The remedy for speculation is excavation. Only direct digging — methodical, transparent, and peer-accessible — can resolve the debate.

If the formation proves natural, the truth loses nothing. But if structural wood, joinery, or artifacts emerge from that mountain, the world’s narrative will shift forever.

Until then, the site remains both a geological mystery and a spiritual mirror — a reminder that the greatest barriers to discovery are not in the rocks, but in ourselves.

The Ark Within

The fear of finding Noah’s Ark is ultimately the fear of finding truth — truth that judges as well as enlightens.

Every age builds its own ark of explanations, crafted to keep its worldview afloat amid rising waters of doubt. Yet truth, like the Ark, is buoyant: it will not sink under criticism or disbelief.

Whether entombed in stone or buried beneath centuries of denial, it will surface when the floods of certainty recede.

Notes
  1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

  2. Lorence G. Collins, “Bogus ‘Noah’s Ark’ from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education 24, no. 5 (2004).

  3. Jerusalem Post, “New Evidence at Durupinar Formation Supports Myth of Noah’s Ark,” April 2025.

  4. Daily Sabah, “Excavation Begins in Türkiye near Mount AÄŸrı for Noah’s Ark,” April 2025.

  5. Ron Wyatt, Noah’s Ark: Found (Madison, TN: Wyatt Archaeological Research, 1994).

  6. David Fasold, The Ark of Noah (New York: Wynwood Press, 1988).

  7. Heinrich Schliemann, Ilios: The City and Country of the Trojans (London: John Murray, 1880).

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

The Preaching and Teaching of Lord Jesus Christ: Was His Ministry Really 3.5 Years? Discover How Prophetic Patterns and Biblical Calendars Reveal the True Length of Jesus’ Ministry. A Study in Prophetic Typology and Calendar Chronology: Indications of a Shorter Ministry of Jesus Christ.

 It is very possible that Jesus was intentionally layering time language with prophetic meaning in Luke 13:32—especially if you interpret it through the lens of the “day-for-a-year” principle found in prophetic Scripture.

Let’s explore that possibility step by step:

📖 The Verse in Question:

“Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.’”
— Luke 13:32 (ESV)

🕰 Literal Reading: Three Days Until His Death?

At face value, Jesus seems to be saying:
“I have a short time left—three days—and I’ll complete my mission.”

But chronologically, this statement doesn’t line up with three literal days before the crucifixion. The journey from Galilee to Jerusalem was longer than that, and His crucifixion came weeks later.

So what is Jesus really saying?

📜 Prophetic Pattern: A Day for a Year

This pattern appears elsewhere in Scripture:

  • Numbers 14:34 – “For every day you spied the land, you will bear your guilt a year for each day.”
  • Ezekiel 4:6 – “I have appointed thee each day for a year.”

In biblical prophetic language, days can represent years. Jesus’ phrase “today, tomorrow, and the third day” may reflect this structure.

🧭 Symbolic Timeline Possibility:

If Jesus is using prophetic metaphor, then:

PhraseSymbolic Meaning
TodayHis present ministry—healing, casting out demons
TomorrowThe continuation of that ministry (possibly representing the coming year or season)
Third DayThe completion of His earthly mission (crucifixion and resurrection)

In prophetic terms:

  • First Day = Jesus’ ministry after baptism (~AD 27–28)
  • Second Day = Continued ministry through AD 29–30
  • Third Day = AD 31—crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension

This aligns with:

  • The 3-year ministry view (as opposed to the traditional 3.5)
  • A crucifixion in AD 31, a model you’ve affirmed in prior work

🔥Further Support for a Symbolic Interpretation

Consider Jesus’ use of similar language elsewhere:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” — John 2:19

Here, “three days” refers to His death and resurrection—but again, it’s not strictly literal in every sense. It points to a prophetic pattern.

🌿Thematic Implication: God’s Sovereign Timetable

Jesus may be subtly affirming:

  • Herod cannot disrupt the appointed timeline.
  • His “days” are divinely ordered, not politically dictated.
  • Whether literal or symbolic, His death and resurrection will occur on the third day of God’s calendar—not man’s.

“Today and tomorrow I go on healing. On the third day, I finish everything.”

This is not idle speech. It is prophetic defiance cloaked in metaphor.

✅ Takeaway

Jesus could very well be invoking the “day = year” principle in Luke 13:32.

This interpretation:

  • Preserves His sovereignty over time
  • Aligns with biblical prophetic tradition
  • Reinforces that His mission follows heaven’s calendar, not Herod’s

Let us further consider prophetic typology, and calendar-based chronology consistent with an AD 31 crucifixion after a two-year ministry.

🕊️ “On the Third Day I Finish My Course” – A Prophetic Time Marker

📖 Luke 13:32

“Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.”

Jesus is using metaphor—not exact 72-hour blocks, but prophetic periods.

📅 Gospel Chronology: 2 Years and 2 Months
  • Jesus is baptized: Likely in the winter (around Shevat/January) – an era known for its global warming –  just before the first Passover He attends (John 2:13).
  • Public ministry begins: Shortly before that first Passover.
  • Second Passover: John 6:4.
  • Third Passover (crucifixion): John 12–19.

So we have:

Three Passovers = Two full years

From winter AD 28 to spring AD 31

This means Jesus ministered 2 years and a few months.

⏳ "Day-for-a-Year" Prophetic Language

Expression

Approximate Meaning
TodayYear 1 (AD 29 – first full year)
TomorrowYear 2 (AD 30)
Third DayYear 3 (AD 31 – crucifixion/resurrection)

This poetic-prophetic phrasing (“on the third day”) doesn’t demand a full third year. It implies the beginning or within the third year—any time after the second.

This reflects the Hebrew idiom of inclusive time reckoning, wherein God counts parts of days as whole days, and “third day” often simply means on the third portion of time, not a completed duration.

🔥 Theological Implication

Jesus is saying:

“I have a divine schedule. Not one day too early, not one day too late. I will complete My mission in the third segment of appointed time—exactly as the Father ordained.”

This also harmonizes with:

  • Hosea 6:2 — “After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up.”
  • The creation week typology: God works for six days; the third day often marks life or resurrection.

✅ Interim Summary

Yes, “on the third day I finish my course” fits precisely with:

  • A 2 years and 2 months ministry,
  • The day-for-a-year pattern,
  • A crucifixion in spring AD 31, and
  • The biblical use of ordinal prophetic language (where the third "day" begins after the second ends).

📖 Jesus’ Words and Hosea’s Prophecy: A Perfect Match
 
🔹 Jesus in Luke 13:32:

Today and tomorrow I do cures, and on the third day I finish my course.

🔹 Hosea 6:2:

After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him.

These passages align thematically and prophetically:

  • “After two days” = Delay or time of waiting
  • “Third day” = Restoration, resurrection, divine completion

⚖️ Misuse by Friday-Crucifixion Advocates

Those who hold to a Friday crucifixion–Sunday resurrection model often appeal to Hosea 6:2 and Jesus’ “third day” statements to rationalize a less-than-72-hour timeline, saying:

“Part of Friday = Day 1, all of Saturday = Day 2, part of Sunday = Day 3.”

This is Jewish inclusive reckoning, and while it has some merit in other narrative contexts, it completely collapses when applied to:

  • Jesus’ own specific prophecy:

    Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40)

  • The typological fulfillment of the Passover (Jesus as the Lamb of God slain just prior to the beginning of Nisan 14, between the two evenings)

🔥 What Most Overlook

1.    Hosea 6:2 is prophetic, not legalistic.
It speaks of phases—not mere fractions of days.

2.     Jesus’ words in Luke 13:32 do not support a 36-hour burial:

  •      "Third day"  = completion of His mission, including death and resurrection
  •         “Today and tomorrow” = ongoing ministry

3.     The “heart of the earth” must mean entombment, not mere suffering or dying.

4.     Any model that gives Jesus less than 3 days and 3 nights is in conflict with His own stated sign (Matthew 12:40).

🧭 This Chronology Fits Best:

EventDate/Time (Nisan)Fulfillment
CrucifixionNisan 13 (Wed afternoon)Slain at 9th hour (3 PM)
Burial beginsNisan 14 evening (Wed sunset)First night
Full DaysThurs (Nisan 14), Fri (Nisan 15), Sat (Nisan 16)3 days and 3 nights
ResurrectionEnd of Sabbath (Sat evening, Nisan 17)Exactly on the third day

This allows:

  • Three full nights: Wed, Thurs, Fri
  • Three full days: Thurs, Fri, Sat
  • And aligns with:
    • Luke 24:21 — “It is the third day since these things happened.”
    • Hosea 6:2 — “On the third day He will raise us up.”
    • Luke 13:32 — “On the third day I finish my course.”

 Conclusion

Yes—Jesus' reference to the third day perfectly mirrors Hosea 6:2. It speaks of:

  • Prophetic fulfillment, not fractional timing
  • Completion, not compromise
  • Three full days and nights, not a symbolic 36-hour span

By contrast, Friday crucifixion models must dismiss or distort Jesus’ own words, and they undermine the typological strength of the entire Passover narrative.