Does God Cook his own Fish?

My dear Christian friends, I am going to present to you the ONE passage from the Bible that PROVES that the Christian story is a tall tale (Addendum:  If you are a liberal Christian and do not believe that the following story from the Bible is, without question, a real historical event, this post does not apply to your form of Christianity.)

Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” They answered him, “No.” He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish. That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea. The other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off.

When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

There are a couple of very odd things about this passage. First, if this was the third time that Jesus had appeared to these guys, why the concern about verifying who he was? Seems odd, to me. I mean, all but Thomas had seen him in the Upper Room where he sat down and ate a broiled fish lunch with them. And a week later, they had seen him again, this time with Thomas, and they had all gotten so close to him that they could touch his body and his wounds. But here they are sitting around the fire with him…and they are worried about verifying who he is. Hmm.

And now the whopper in this story.

Remember. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Jesus is resurrected. Jesus has returned from the dead, verifying that not only is he the Messiah, the Son of God, but that he IS God. He is Yahweh. No further need of parables and riddles to hide his true identity. He is the Almighty, All-Knowing Creator of the Universe. I can just imagine the disciples asking Jesus, after the Resurrection, during the forty (or eight) days that they spent with him…

…Jesus, tell us how you created the entire universe in six days. What was it like before Creation?
…Jesus, tell us about the time in the Garden when you discovered that Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.
…Jesus, tell us about the Great Flood. Was it really of the entire world, or just the Euphrates River Valley? Were there really a male and a female of every one of the tens of thousands of species of animals on earth, all on that one boat? And how did the kangaroos make it to Australia without leaving any skeletons along the way from Mt. Arat?
…Tell us about the Exodus! Tell us about how you killed all the firstborn of Egypt! How did you do it? Poison gas or did you just smother the little Egyptian brats?
…Tell us how you brought the walls of Jericho crashing down.

And then the Creator of the Universe…cooks some fish.


The All-Powerful God of the universe cookson a wood fire?


The God of the Universe doesn’t need to cook. If he wanted his disciples to have a nice meal he could just speak the words and it would be so…like:   Smorgasbord guys!  Come and get it!

But he didn’t.  He cooked his own fish.

This is a dumb story! This is a stupid story!

Open your eyes, folks. This is a tall tale!


36 thoughts on “Does God Cook his own Fish?

  1. Your posts get more senseless all the time Gary. So what?? So what if he cooks fish? All I can figure is your joking on this post….unless of course you really are this crazy.


  2. Why would an all-powerful god, who has already revealed his identity to the disciples, need to spend his time cooking fish, instead of “poofing” cooked fish into existence in a millisecond?

    It's dumb. It demonstrates that this is simply a tall tale by first century humans.

    (And please don't give me the worn out record of: “God works in mysterious ways”.)


  3. Hey Gary I have a question for you, let us say this same Jesus did exactly what you are mocking here only instead of fish let's say oh, water into wine. Would you believe the story any more or any less than you did before you thought up this latest bombshell?


  4. If I personally witnessed any man *poof* water into wine or *poof* fish out of thin air…I would be all ears.

    However, since these stories are written in four books, two or three of which plagiarize much of the first, written anonymously, by non-eyewitnesses to the events, writing decades after the alleged events, in far away places, for purposes we do not know…I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THESE VERY IMPROBABLE MAGIC CLAIMS!


  5. So then why would it matter if He cooked His own fish or not? Even is POOF the fish was broiled instantly it wouldn't make a bit off difference to you or those who don't want to believe.

    You've wasted your own time trying to offer up this as a “reason” but once it was pointed out something similar DID take place with water to wine you brush it off. You would have brushed of instantly cooked fish in the same way. You're point flops.


  6. The point is…IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

    There is no proof that Jesus turned water into wine. It is just another tall tale. Just like the tall tales of walking on water, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and TWO fish, ordering demons into pig herds, and raising people from the dead.

    They are all stories of magic.

    Magic is NOT real, and Christians can't prove that it is…except by faith, otherwise known as…superstition.

    By the way, if you read the story in John, Jesus (who is cooking fish on the seashore)orders the disciples to cast out their nets…and voila…magically they catch ALOT of fish.

    But notice, the writers of the stories about Jesus like to be very precise with their (big) fish(es) stories. This time, in this story, there are ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE fish!


  7. No, the point is your argument doesn't hold water. I am responding to YOU not the bible. My entire point is that you need to pick better arguments because this one was worthless since there are plenty of miracle stories in the bible already.

    You buy none of those miracles so you are asking the reader to take your point that Jesus did NOT perform a miracle in this instance as proof He was incapable or and/or never performed any at all.


  8. Don't be a dimwit, Frank.

    The point is this: God doesn't need to cook. He can *poof* anything he wants into existence, in the blink of an eye, anytime he wants.

    The cutesy story of God roasting trout over a crackling fire on the seashore is just that, a cutesy story.

    The Gospel of John is a masterpiece of LITERATURE. It is a story. For all we know, the author never meant for ANY of it to be taken literally. (Try to prove that claim wrong.)


  9. So your entire argument is that God doesn't need to cook? That's what you were going for? Why stop there? Why would God even need to eat? BOMBSHELL!


  10. Frank –

    You have missed the whole point.

    God didn't get Gary's memo. He needed to do things the way Gary thinks best. That, and whole buncha ad hominem, is all this blog is about.


    There is a bird who, by his coat
    And by the hoarseness of his note,
    Might be supposed a crow;
    A great frequenter of the church,
    Where, bishop-like, he finds a perch,
    And dormitory too.

    Above the steeple shines a plate,
    That turns and turns, to indicate
    From what point blows the weather.
    Look up — your brains begin to swim,
    'Tis in the clouds — that pleases him,
    He chooses it the rather.

    Fond of the speculative height,
    Thither he wings his airy flight,
    And thence securely sees
    The bustle and the rareeshow,
    That occupy mankind below,
    Secure and at his ease.

    You think, no doubt, he sits and muses
    On future broken bones and bruises,
    If he should chance to fall.
    No; not a single thought like that
    Employs his philosophic pate,
    Or troubles it at all.

    He sees that this great roundabout,
    The world, with all its motley rout,
    Church, army, physic, law,
    Its customs and its businesses,
    Is no concern at all of his,
    And says — what says he? — Caw.

    Thrice happy bird! I too have seen
    Much of the vanities of men;
    And, sick of having seen 'em,
    Would cheerfully these limbs resign
    For such a pair of wings as thine
    And such a head between 'em.

    William Cowper


  11. Supposedly….after his resurrection…Jesus didn't need to eat, but he ate broiled fish anyway. Weird.

    It seems to me that it was more important for the authors of these stories to prove that the “raised” Jesus was real flesh and blood body and not a ghost. They don't seem interested in proving his body was “immortal”. For all we know, the earliest Christians didn't see Jesus' “raised” body as any different from Lazarus' “raised” body, the only difference being that Jesus' “raising” was a sign that he was the Messiah. The alleged appearances of Jesus proved to the disciples that Jesus was the messiah and that they would soon reign with Jesus, sitting on twelve thrones, ruling over the re-established Davidic Monarchy in the New Israel.

    From the little evidence we do have, I will bet it is very possible that the original “raised from the dead” stories about Jesus did NOT include an Ascension (it is only mentioned by one gospel author, and he admits he was not an eyewitness.) So it is quite possible that the truth is that Jesus lived on, appearing here, and appearing there, for many years, and then when he died the second time, as all “raised” people do, God carried his body to an unknown location and buried him…kind of like with Moses. And that is why Papias, in the second century, believed that Jesus lived on into his 50's after his “raising”!!

    Maybe the author of John never meant any of his miracle stories, or God-cooking-fish stories, to be taken literally. Maybe they were told for theological purposes only, not meant to be seen as historical events.

    And since we don't know what his purpose for telling these stories was (no one else in the Bible tells about this cooking-fish-story), we should chalk it up to a theological story, not an historical story.

    But we will never know for sure why he wrote these stories because no one knows who wrote this book! So the mature, rational thing to do is to NOT believe a tall tale until there is evidence to support its veracity.

    We don't believe stories about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster on the basis of poor evidence, so why should we believe it about a man who lived twenty centuries ago who allegedly walked on water, turned water into wine…and cooked fish after he had just received his shiny, brand-spanking-new, superhero, I-can-cook-fish-by-just-wiggling-my-nose body.


  12. Gary said this: “And that is why Papias, in the second century, believed that Jesus lived on into his 50's after his “raising”!!”

    I said this: Irenaeus, Gary… At least get your errors right.


  13. Irenaeus:

    22.5 […] On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, [3140] and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.
    but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being [3144] of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; [3145] and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma;
    So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” [3136] the Prince of life, [3137] existing before all, and going before all. [3138]


  14. Why not? Who cares anyway? He can do what He wants. You might not do it that way but so what. Good Grief. This is one of the dumbest posts I have read on your blog and there are plenty of dumb ones. All this fish cooking post does is tell me you aren't as bright as you think you are.


  15. Hahahaha…and just how do you know anyway? You know nothing about God at all. You make up what you believe. Gary you are a joke.


  16. Sadly, the joke is on YOU, friend. Someone has convinced you that water-walking is possible; that water can magically turn into fine Chardonnay wine; and that ghosts can impregnate virgins.

    These claims belong in a book of fairy tales. No educated adult should believe them to be historical facts.

    They are ancient superstitions.

    You have been brainwashed.


  17. You think you know it all don't you? Wow. God is wonderful and all powerful (He can cook fish any way He wants and WITHOUT your egotistical self- centeredness dictating it is the wrong way)and He is really REAL! Say what you want but just because you hooked up with a bunch of who knows who they are atheists that worked to convince you of something else, that doesn't change a thing. This is the corniest post I have read on your site and believe me there are many many corny and dumb post on here.


  18. You have no proof of that claim whatsoever. It is simply a superstition. You have no more proof of your superstition than believers in Martians, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot have of theirs.

    And probably less. We have photos of the alleged Loch Ness Monster, alleged Martian UFO's, and even of Bigfoot. All you have are assumptions about the behaviors and beliefs of people living twenty centuries ago and second century hearsay.

    Your belief system is a superstition and it is high time it is debunked.


  19. Proving it to you is impossible so I won't bother. You will argue and disagree with whatever is said. I can say that I do know and have seen that God is real. Believe what you want and what your atheist pals talked you into. I will stay with the truth of God.


  20. I never denied the existence of a Creator god (or gods). What I denied is the existence of Yahweh and all his supernatural exploits. There is zero good evidence that this ancient middle eastern deity exists.

    This is one of the biggest (and weakest) assumptions in Christianity: Just because there may be evidence for a Creator, that Creator MUST be Yahweh-Jesus.


  21. Life is a miracle…we are moving thinking beings. If life can exist turning water into wine or walking on water is nothing compared to creating life.

    And Jesus MAKES Christianity what it is so of course the Christian God is Yahweh-Jesus. Zero evidence is what you believe but many Christians know different.


  22. Life is not a miracle. Your existence is due to natural selection. Science has proven it.

    The cause of the existence of the universe is not (yet)known, so until you have evidence that it was caused by a “miracle”, your claim is just one of a long list of assumptions in your ancient superstition.

    We have evidence that Jesus existed as a first century human being but you have ZERO evidence that he is a god or that he is still alive, sitting on a throne, in a place called “heaven”, located just above a non-existent “firmament”.


  23. Wallace is an expert on the beliefs and habits of early Christians. He is not an expert on turning water into wine, ghost-imgregnation of virgins, water-walking, nor zombie resurrections.

    On these issues he is just as much a novice as me…and everyone else on the planet.


  24. Eye witnesses???

    Neither Wallace, you, nor any other Christian can give good evidence that we have ANY eyewitness testimony. You can only give assumptions and second century hearsay.

    Please name ONE eyewitness, as believed by the majority of NT scholars, to the Resurrected body of Jesus other than Paul, who specifically states that he only saw Jesus in a “heavenly vision”.


  25. So when does true history begin for you? What is the date when the most reliable writing supplies would have been good enough for documentation? Did you ever see the movie “Fahrenheit 451?” Or “The Book of Eli?” You should really do some actual research into real history for a change. It might help your thinking more than just reading blog or online articles. I still trust Daniel Wallace over your Bart Ehrman. Daniel is a better critical thinker. Do you think if he would have found any reason to dismantle the Bible he wouldn't have done it? If you think he is that dishonest, you are truly delusional.


  26. I don't think Wallace is dishonest, just biased. He has a vested interest in the findings. His entire world view is dependent on the supernatural stories in the NT being historical facts.

    Again, Wallace is a very smart scholar, but he is not a scholar regarding the supernatural, only a scholar about ancient peoples' BELIEFS regarding one particular set of supernatural claims. Wallace CANNOT give you evidence for the supernatural, and that is my point: the supernatural in NOT provable. By definition, miracles are the least probable of all explanations for any event, otherwise we wouldn't call it a “miracle”.

    Just as I cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns and fairies, I cannot disprove the existence of a raised-from-the-dead, ghost-impregnated-virgin-born, ancient Jewish preacher, who at this moment, is sitting on a golden throne, somewhere beyond the furthest boundary of outer space!

    But I can assert that the probability of leprechauns, fairies, and resurrected dead preachers are so low, so very improbable, that these claims should not be believed by any educated, enlightened person.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s