Does Google Hate Jesus? The Day Search Console Showed 637 Discovered Gospel Pages and Zero Indexed
Bing could find some of the library. Google Search Console showed me none indexed. Here are the public pages at the center of the investigation.
The articles are real.
They are public.
They open without a password.
They contain thousands of words about Jesus, the Gospels, the New Testament, faith, grief, failure, mercy, resurrection, and hope.
Google knew hundreds of the URLs existed.
Then, on May 8, 2026, Google Search Console showed me a number that stopped me cold:
637 discovered pages. Zero indexed pages.
That is the publisher-reported historical result that sits at the center of the “Does Google Hate Jesus?” campaign.
It is not a current count. It is not a public dashboard that anyone can open. It does not prove that Google deliberately discriminated against Christianity. It does not prove that an employee looked at my work and decided to bury it.
It does prove that I had a serious question.
How could a large Gospel and New Testament library be publicly available on Blogger, known to Google at the URL-discovery level, and still show zero indexed pages in the report I recorded?
Why did Bing appear to find at least some of the same Blogger material while Google left so much of it difficult to discover?
The complete evidence framework is preserved in the canonical WordPress investigation. The article immediately before this one is an open letter asking search engineers, Blogger specialists, journalists, Christian media, and independent publishers to examine the case.
This Tumblr article has a different job.
It puts the public pages directly in front of you.
No vague claim. No distant theory. No demand that you trust my interpretation before looking.
Open the pages.
Read them.
Then ask why a library like this could be discovered at scale and remain outside the indexed total shown to its publisher.
Start With Matthew
When Jesus Sat Down and Heaven Stood Up: A Heart-Changing Journey Through Matthew 5
Published November 21, 2025.
The page is about the Sermon on the Mount. It discusses the Beatitudes, mercy, reconciliation, righteousness, integrity, light, and the demanding life Jesus described.
The article is not hidden behind a login.
It is not an empty page.
It is not a one-paragraph placeholder created to capture a keyword.
It is a substantial public commentary on Matthew 5.
Open it.
The question is not whether the article exists. It clearly does.
The question is what happened after Blogger published it.
Was Google aware of the URL but unwilling to crawl it?
Did Google crawl it and decide not to index it?
Did Google select another page as the canonical version?
Did the theme create confusing structural signals?
Did repeated elements across a large library make the unique article look less distinct to an automated system?
Those are technical questions.
“Google hates Jesus” is not yet a technical answer.
Then Look at Mark
The Night Love Learned the Cost of Staying
Published January 31, 2026.
This article moves through Mark 14: betrayal, the Last Supper, Gethsemane, arrest, fear, failure, and the cost of remaining when love becomes dangerous.
It is a different Gospel.
A different chapter.
A different title.
A different publication date.
The page still lives inside the same Blogger environment.
That matters because a fair investigation needs more than one example. If only one article were difficult to find, the problem might belong to that page. When many pages across a large archive experience similar treatment, property-level and system-level explanations become more important.
The Mark page gives specialists another public object to inspect.
What is the declared canonical?
What does Google select as canonical?
Does the mobile-rendered version contain the complete article?
How many headings come from the article, and how many come from the theme?
How much of the rendered page is unique body text compared with repeated navigation, signatures, links, and platform elements?
When was the URL last crawled?
Does Bing index it while reporting technical warnings?
A real investigation asks those questions before announcing motive.
Then Walk Into Luke 24
The Morning That Changed the World
Published February 26, 2026.
This article is about resurrection.
The women arrive at the tomb carrying grief. The disciples struggle to believe what they hear. Two people walk toward Emmaus without recognizing that Jesus is beside them. Hope is already present, but sorrow has made it difficult to see.
That makes Luke 24 one of the most emotionally powerful pages in this campaign.
It also makes it one of the easiest pages to misuse.
A Christian reader may see a resurrection article missing from Google and conclude that Google rejected the resurrection.
The current evidence does not prove that.
A technical defect does not need an opinion about Jesus.
A canonical conflict does not need religious hostility.
A crawl backlog does not need a theology.
An automated quality system can make a poor decision without a person deliberately targeting Christianity.
But the opposite mistake is also possible.
People should not dismiss a serious discrepancy merely because the content is religious and the campaign title is provocative.
The Luke page exists.
The Search Console condition I recorded existed.
The Bing-versus-Google difference I experienced deserves examination.
The responsible position is neither immediate accusation nor immediate dismissal.
It is scrutiny.
Then Read John 3
A Midnight Conversation That Changed Eternity: The Truth Jesus Revealed in John Chapter 3
Published November 23, 2025.
Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night.
He has status, education, religion, and questions he cannot solve by protecting his reputation. Jesus speaks to him about new birth, belief, judgment, light, and the love of God.
The article is long, visible, public, and unmistakably centered on John 3.
Its title may be longer than a technical auditor would recommend. Blogger’s theme may generate headings or repeated structures that deserve correction. The larger network may contain other John 3 treatments that cause clustering. Google may judge that another page represents the subject better.
All of those explanations remain possible.
What is not reasonable is pretending that the page is imaginary or that no question exists simply because Google never promised to index it.
A search engine’s right to make a decision does not automatically explain the decision.
What “637 Discovered” Actually Means
This campaign can become misleading if one word is allowed to carry too much weight.
Discovered does not necessarily mean Google crawled and fully evaluated every one of the 637 URLs.
A search engine can learn that a URL exists through a sitemap, an internal link, an external link, a feed, an archive, or an earlier crawl.
Discovery is awareness.
Crawling is retrieval.
Indexing is selection and storage for potential search use.
Ranking and serving determine what a searcher actually sees.
Those stages are different.
When Search Console showed me 637 discovered and zero indexed, the system appeared to know about hundreds of URLs. It did not necessarily mean every URL had been downloaded, rendered, and individually rejected.
That distinction makes the claim more accurate.
It does not make the condition unimportant.
If hundreds of URLs were known but none appeared in the indexed total, the next question is where the process stopped.
Were the URLs waiting to be crawled?
Were they crawled and declined?
Were they grouped under different canonical pages?
Did Google consider the archive too repetitive or too low priority?
Did Blogger’s structure create more URLs and signals than the property could manage?
Did high publication volume outrun crawl demand?
Did another condition affect the whole site?
“Discovered” is not the answer.
It tells us where to begin looking.
What “Zero Indexed” Does Not Prove
Zero indexed in a private historical report did not prove that Google hated Jesus.
It did not prove that every Google system contained no trace of every URL.
It did not prove that a public site: search would always show nothing.
It did not prove that no page would ever be indexed later.
It did not prove that Bing indexed all 637 pages.
It did not prove that multiple H1 elements caused the outcome.
It did not prove that publishing volume was innocent.
It did not prove that Google’s decision was correct.
It did prove that the publisher had a documented reason to stop treating the problem as one missing article.
Why Bing Matters
Bing is not the savior of this story.
Google is not automatically the villain.
Bing matters because it appears to have reached different results on at least some of the same Blogger material.
That difference weakens the simplest claim that the entire library is universally inaccessible.
If one major search system can retrieve and surface a page, the page can be processed somewhere.
The useful question becomes:
Why did the systems disagree?
Maybe Bing crawled more aggressively.
Maybe Bing has a broader inclusion threshold.
Maybe Bing tolerated structural warnings that mattered more to Google.
Maybe Google clustered the Blogger pages with versions on WordPress, Medium, Google Sites, Ghost, Write.as, Substack, or elsewhere.
Maybe Google’s quality systems saw repeated patterns across the network.
Maybe Bing’s public result did not represent durable indexing.
Each possibility can be tested.
None requires a religious verdict in advance.
The H1 Warning Is Not the Whole Story
Bing Site Scan reportedly flagged H1 and title concerns.
I tried several H1-related fixes.
They did not solve the broad problem.
That does not mean headings are irrelevant.
A theme can generate several top-level headings. It can place the site title, article title, widget title, or hidden responsive elements into a confusing hierarchy. Long titles can create weaker presentation. Repeated template structures can make distinct pages look similar.
Those issues deserve attention.
But one audit warning should not be promoted into a universal explanation without evidence.
If Bing can index a page while warning about its H1 structure, the warning is not an absolute barrier in Bing.
If changing headings does not alter Google’s treatment, another variable may be more important.
The right test is not “change everything and hope.”
The right test is “identify one hypothesis, change one variable, keep comparable pages unchanged, and watch what happens.”
That is why the Blogger site is being preserved during the investigation.
The Scale Question Cannot Be Avoided
The public Blogger archive contains hundreds of posts.
The larger Douglas Vandergraph project covers all 260 chapters of the New Testament across several publishing platforms, along with videos, stories, social posts, and Christian encouragement.
That scale is part of the mission.
It may also be part of the technical problem.
A search engine sees more than individual articles.
It sees publication frequency.
It sees shared structures.
It sees repeated signatures.
It sees internal link patterns.
It sees several pages discussing related biblical chapters across connected domains.
It sees titles, templates, introductions, conclusions, and calls to action repeated at scale.
My intention may be to create a unique platform version for a different audience.
A classifier may still see a cluster.
High volume does not automatically mean spam.
Sincere purpose does not automatically mean every page is distinct enough for every index.
The campaign has to be honest about both truths.
If the library grew faster than its architecture, say so.
If some platform versions are too similar, identify them.
If repeated material is outweighing unique text, measure it.
If the publication rate exceeded Google’s crawl interest, show the pattern.
If the pages are meaningfully distinct and technically sound, then the Bing-versus-Google difference becomes harder to dismiss.
This Is What I Am Asking Experts to Do
Do not argue with the headline before opening the pages.
Do not endorse the headline before examining the evidence.
Take the same four URLs.
Check their response status.
Check their robots directives.
Check the declared canonical.
Check Google’s selected canonical where verified access permits.
Check Bing’s index and crawl information.
Compare desktop and mobile rendering.
Identify every H1 and where it comes from.
Measure unique article text against repeated template text.
Check internal-link depth.
Compare related platform versions.
Record crawl dates.
Separate public search results from private webmaster-tool status.
Then choose the leading hypothesis.
Predict what should happen if it is correct.
Recommend one controlled change.
That is more useful than another generic instruction to submit a sitemap.
This Is What I Am Asking Tumblr Readers to Do
Read at least one of the four Gospel pages.
Share the investigation with someone who understands search, Blogger, digital publishing, or technical SEO.
Do not post that religious discrimination has been proven.
Do not tell people there is no issue simply because Google does not guarantee indexing.
Use the correct language:
A large public Gospel library on Blogger experienced a severe publisher-reported discovery-to-indexing gap in Google Search Console, while Bing appeared to find at least some of the same material. The cause remains under investigation.
That statement is strong enough.
It is also honest.
The Articles Are Not Search Results
The truth inside these articles does not become more or less true because of Google.
Matthew 5 still calls people toward mercy and integrity.
Mark 14 still shows how fear can break promises and how love remains.
Luke 24 still announces resurrection to grieving people.
John 3 still records Jesus speaking about new birth, belief, light, and love.
An index is not a spiritual authority.
But people use indexes.
A search engine does not determine whether the Gospel is true.
It influences whether a person searching for the Gospel finds this particular library.
That is why visibility matters without becoming an idol.
If the Answer Is Ordinary, the Campaign Still Matters
Suppose the final explanation is entirely technical.
Suppose specialists show that Blogger generated confusing canonical signals, the archive became too deep, publication outran crawl demand, or related platform articles looked more alike to Google than they looked to human readers.
That would not make this campaign a failure.
It would give independent publishers something they rarely receive: a specific explanation connected to a reproducible condition.
An ordinary answer could rescue pages, improve the Master Index, strengthen future platform differentiation, and help other Blogger users avoid repeating the same mistakes.
The investigation does not need a villain to matter.
It needs a cause.
The more dramatic possibility should never be protected from evidence. If technically comparable nonreligious Blogger libraries experience the same pattern, the religious-content theory becomes weaker. If current Search Console data shows improvement, that improvement should be reported. If Google selected other platform versions as canonicals, the claim should change from blanket exclusion to canonical displacement.
The campaign’s credibility depends on being willing to reach a less sensational conclusion.
The headline brought attention to the problem. The evidence must be allowed to change the story.
Does Google Hate Jesus?
The evidence does not prove that.
The evidence proves that the question did not come from nowhere.
The pages exist.
The Blogger archive exists.
The private historical Search Console result I recorded showed 637 discovered URLs and zero indexed URLs on May 8, 2026.
Bing appeared to find some of the library that Google left much harder to discover.
The H1 fixes did not solve the broad condition.
The site remains public so specialists can inspect it.
The cause may be technical.
It may be architectural.
It may be about scale.
It may be about duplication or canonicalization.
It may involve automated quality classification.
It may be something no one has identified yet.
What it cannot remain is unexplained simply because the publisher is small and the system is enormous.
Open the pages.
Examine the evidence.
Test the strongest theory.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Explain the system if it is working as designed.
Identify the defect if it is not.
The question is provocative.
The investigation is real.
And the answer should be based on more than silence.
Your friend,
Douglas Vandergraph
Explore the complete Douglas Vandergraph Master Index: https://douglasvandergraph.com/douglas-vandergraph-master-index/
Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph