top of page
  • Writer's pictureCourtney Heard

These 14 Evidences For Christ's Resurrection Don't Make Any Sense

It’s hard enough to commit to reading an entire article entitled, “14 Evidences For The Resurrection of Jesus Christ – And 14 References” let alone get through the damned thing, but that’s just what the fuck I did, and I had some thoughts.

This article epitomizes what is wrong with every creationist’s argument. It’s not an argument. It’s more like an extremely uncoordinated teenage boy lobbing steaming piles of shit at the girl he likes in hopes that one will hit her hard enough to knock her right into true love.

But just for the sake of entertainment, and because Mommy didn’t get much sleep last night, let’s pick the post apart, shall we?

So, our friendly apologist starts out explaining that this is meant to be brief and it’s just an overview. He uses terms like “factual” and “historicity” to make you feel like he has a clue. I assure you, my Hellbound friends: He does not.

“Evidence” No. 1 – Jesus existed because a bunch of dudes say he did. He then goes on to say that ancient Christian, Jewish, and Pagan “sources” support this claim.

The thing is, none of it is evidence. It's hearsay, personal testimony eight times removed, and all-around balderdash. It's not worth its own weight in shit. I'm not convinced that Jesus, the magical son of God, existed. We have plenty of texts from years past referencing the Tooth Fairy as well. It doesn’t make it evidence. Every last person on Earth could believe someone existed. It does not make it fact. Belief is belief, and fact is fact. Maybe some open-toed-sandal-sporting hippie named Yeshua existed who loosely fits the description of Christ, but I'm not putting any bets on his ability to walk on water or reanimate after death.

The other issue I have with the author’s first point is that the title of the whole article refers to evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. He says he has 14 whole entire points to support that Jesus rose from the dead. And point one doesn’t even come close. Even if he had found demonstrable evidence to prove Jesus existed as a historical figure, it doesn’t prove he was a zombie. I can prove that billions of people exist with irrefutable proof. By this guy’s logic, proving those billions existed is also “evidence” they died and woke up three days later.

Point one: not even a point.

“Evidence” No. 2: Our believer friend suggests that there is proof Jesus died on a cross. Considering I don’t necessarily buy that the Jesus of the Bible lived, ever, I can’t possibly be convinced he died on a cross, but let’s just say I believe it. Let’s pretend that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. How does that equal resurrection? Again, it doesn’t prove Jesus came back from the dead. It just proves that there was some Middle Eastern granola eater with a God complex who died on a cross a bunch of years ago. This is not evidence of the resurrection.

Point two: still not even a point.

“Evidence” No. 3: This one really hurts my brain. Our friendly author asserts that he knows for sure that it would never have occurred to anyone to worship something or someone like they did Jesus unless something huge like a resurrection happened. I have plenty of counterpoints to this, but I will give you just 3, howzabout?

Charles Manson
  1. Jimmy Jones

  2. Marshall Applewhite

  3. Charles Manson

It doesn’t take something huge and impressive to happen for people to believe bullshit. All it takes is some charismatic fucker with an insatiable lust for power and a bunch of lost, desperate people.

Point three: a personal assertion that resembles evidence in the same way my ass resembles the Sistine Chapel.

“Evidence” No. 4: This one starts with, “All four gospels agree,” so, to even move any further toward accepting this point as evidence or fact, you must believe what the gospels say, which of course, is fucking ludicrous.

Point four: these are starting to feel like punchlines more than points. I mean, really.


“Evidence” No. 5: Once again, starts with “All four gospels agree.” It goes on to say that it would be unlikely that someone would make up the story that women found the tomb of Jesus empty because the testimony of women was devalued back then.

Unlikely. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Using the term “unlikely” while describing “evidence” completely takes its relevance as evidence and flushes it down the shitter.

Point five: flushed. Not even a floatie.

“Evidence” No. 6: Oh boy. So, brainburger tries to explain to us that the earliest non-Christian explanations for the origin of the resurrection myth were that the body had been taken from the tomb, hence the empty geezhole. Ok, let’s just accept these explanations as facts for the sake of argument. Once again, we have stumbled on the same fucking problem we did in points one and two: how does that prove the resurrection? Normal logic: empty grave, therefore bodysnatchers. Halflobe’s logic: empty grave, therefore zombies.

Point six: dead. Not coming back.


Point seven:  Another “I’m pretty sure” assertion that amounts to nothing at all. This time, he's pretty sure the tomb was guarded. Pretty sure won't hold up in court, and it's not gonna hold up here.

“Evidence” No. 8: Ugh. I can’t even… I don’t… I’ll just cut and paste the drivel for you:

PAUL AND LUKE’S INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS. Paul’s list of resurrection witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 coincides with Luke’s account at several points, but in wording and in what is included Luke’s account is clearly independent of Paul. For example, Paul calls Peter by his Aramaic nickname “Cephas,” not Simon or Peter; he refers to “the twelve,” Luke to “the eleven”; Luke does not mention the appearances to James or the five hundred. Thus Paul and Luke give us independent accounts of the appearances they both mention.

Once again, we must suspend our disbelief in the Bible to be able to accept this point as evidence. Add to that the fact that the entire point is nonsense. It adds up the same way Joaquin Pheonix’s rap career did. To sweet, fancy bupkis.

Point eight: painfully vacuous.

“Evidence” No. 9: Our faithful friend says that because Luke only identifies one of the two men who saw Jesus, his account must be true. A-say-what? This guy’s rational thinking works the same way as Wonka’s chocolate factory: on fucking magic and wishes. Maybe he only identified one of the men because he didn’t remember the other guy’s name?  A common affliction, I’d say. We’ve all been groping fruit at the grocery store when some asshole walks up to us and says, “Godless Mom! How have you been? How are the kids? I haven’t seen you in so long!” and you’re all “the fuck? do I know you?” Yeah. But of course, that would never happen to Luke because Jesus and fairies and popes and crap.

Point nine: can’t remember.

“Evidence” No. 10: This is my favourite because the very last line of lunchtime’s point, is exactly: “is probably based in fact. “

Ahh, well then. Colour me a convert.

Point ten: Probably schmobably.

“Evidence” No. 11: Now we’re talking about eyewitness testimony. Here’s something about Godless Mom you may not have known yet: I’ve devoted a huge portion of my adult life to exploring American prison issues, most notably wrongful convictions. Such errors in justice are so common in the USA it’s gained the attention of researchers, scientists, and scholars, and through numerous studies and scientific exploration, they’ve concluded that eyewitness testimony is wrong around half the time, even when the witness is “absolutely sure.” The human mind is a funny thing that we do not fully understand. We’re unreliable eyewitnesses to things that happened today, let alone thousands of years ago, and passed on through numerous translations and interpretations. An “eyewitness” in the bible can be taken as nothing but pure, unadulterated fiction. To believe it word-for-word makes you absolutely and willfully ignorant.

Point eleven: bullshit.


“Evidence” No. 12: Here, he tries to prove to us that the people of biblical times were not gullible. This is an absolutely absurd assertion. Of course, there were gullible people, and of course, there were non-gullible people. Just like any other time in history. Why would that one little chunk of time suddenly have different demographics when it comes to gullibility? Some people are gullible. They always have been. It’s fact.

Point twelve: I wouldn’t buy it if Vince Offer was hawking it, and it came with a free Schticky.

“Evidence” No. 13: Paul was called to faith by Jesus. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say the lord called to them. Do I believe it just because they say it? No. If they had a video of the whole thing going down, maybe I’d fucking believe it, but there’s no video, there’s no proof, and there’s no evidence. Someone saying it happened is not evidence.

Point thirteen: Glorified gossip.

“Evidence” No. 14: Paul was converted; therefore, Jesus was resurrected. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the logic is once again flawed. Paul’s sudden change of heart does not prove a resurrection. He could have been swayed by many things. I remember once, an orange man convinced a whole country full of people to vote for him. They weren’t convinced to vote for him because they witnessed a miracle. They voted for him because he said the right shit, the way they wanted to hear it, and they were all duped. The point is people fall for shit. We all do, we all have. Even the most atheist skeptic of all has fallen for something at one time or another. Why would this pile of motherfuckers in the desert be any different?

Point fourteen: Makes just as much sense as Finnegan's Wake.

So, at this point, we’re given a list of 14 references that include titles like “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” or “Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus,” and most of these that made the list, according to my research, are written by card-carrying jeebots.

So, not only does the author of the article in question not understand what the word evidence means, he apparently has trouble understanding what a reference is as well. I can compile a list of books about leprechauns and cite some people asserting that they have, in fact, seen one. By the very same logic as has been presented in these 14 points and the list of references, that means that leprechauns are, without any shadow of a doubt, real.

I honestly find myself in such a state of disbelief after reading bullshit like this that I struggle to accept that people truly believe it.

Momma needs a fucking nap.

What do you think of Mr. Bowman’s “evidence”? Do you think anything he’s written could actually be used as proof that Jesus was resurrected?

If you like what I do here and want to support my work, you can chip in here or become a patron here.


Recent Posts

See All



Related Products

bottom of page