According to the Bible (the Gospel of John, chapter 21), after his death in April of the year 30 of the Common Era (CE), Jesus somehow appeared to his disciples by the Sea of Galilee.
This happened one late afternoon after Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael (or Bartholomew), the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two other disciples were together, and Simon Peter said he was going off the shore to fish. The disciples who were present agreed to follow him.
However, that night they caught no fish, and early in the morning, we are told that somehow the dead Jesus stood on the shore, yet the disciples didn't realise that it was Jesus.
The Bible, especially the New Testament Gospels, somehow follow a reverse or perverse logic. The narratives try to prove something by stating the obvious opposite.
Dead men tell no tales, yet we are supposed to believe what not even Jesus' disciples really believed at the time, and simply because the literate narrator(s), and/or editor(s) of the now Greek text, originally probably written in Hebrew for a more select readership, said so.
Somehow literate people, speaking a political-commercial language (a register, not a real peoples' language), not an ectolanguage, are supposed to know better, which is like saying that in the early 16th century physicians knew medicine and the human body better than Leonardo da Vinci.
So you see, it only takes one real son of God to prove the opposite of what the Bible routinely wants readers to believe, so who do you suspect is the overall author of the Bible? Sons of men (ie, Mankind), of course.
After Jesus asked whether they had caught any fish, and got a negative answer, Jesus suggested to throw the net on the right, or on the opposite side of the boat, and when they did that, they were unable to haul the net in, because of the large number of fish caught in it.
Then an even more enigmatic disciple, the one "whom Jesus loved", admitted to Peter that it had to be Jesus, and as soon as he did, Simon Peter jumped into the water, and swam the few hundred yards that separated the boat from the shore.
When Peter reached the shore, he saw that Jesus had started a fire with some fish on it, and some bread.
Then Jesus told everyone to come sit down and have a nice breakfast of fish and bread, and Jesus asked Simon Peter repeatedly whether he loved him, or not.
And Simon Peter repeatedly answered "Yes", and Jesus always answered something like, "Then feed my sheep (or my little lambs)".
How can this be a true story, however, since the born again Simon Peter, who today is a grown up woman, never loved the born again Jesus, who today is a grown up man?
The born again Simon Peter today would have even more reasons to love the born again Jesus!
Moreover, the born again Simon Peter never fed his born again disciples either, since none of them live near one another, even 'her' brother Andrew today, also a grown up woman like 'her', or the disciples' current children, for that matter.
In fact, today none of them bother to even feed the born again Jesus.
Now that is the truth, and nothing but the truth!
Jesus loved, healed, and even fed hundreds, if not thousands of people, and now nobody even feeds him, or even cares whether he is well or not!
So as the spiritual Master himself suggested, throw that worthless servant of Judaeo-Christianity outside of your congregation or community, into the darkness, where they will certainly be weeping and gnashing their teeth (Matthew 25:30), because that is what the born again Jesus himself will do when he returns anyway, and settles his 'accounts' — soul contracts based on loving and honouring, not on political or material power or manipulation — with his former disciples.
Jesus didn't have a politician's reverse or perverse logic.
MT Kaisiris Tallini