Is there any Christians who still pray that way?

[UsayIsaIsayGod]

I am afraid Sol and Usay forgot what I asked, so here's again:

Sir, I do not intend to stray from the topic into a debate over languages and semantics. I merely wanted to offer my perspective from English scriptures to someone who was posing questions by using English scriptures -- a consistent medium between his post and mine.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The Qur'an was revealed through an arab in Arabia, hence it was conveyed in arabic. Do you think it's acceptable if we have the qur'an written in Greek koine while we have no orginal in arabic?

greetings naidamar, and what's wrong? i just quoted your exact words in which you claimed the following:

Both you and I know that it is not the original, unless you like to delude yourself. No one else even remotely believe it is the original, not even bible scholars, as the oldest preserved bible were from the 4th century, unless you think scraps of manuscript the size of a credit card containing few verses as the complete bible. And even then, it was not written in the language of Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples. So no one actually knows exactly what Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples really spoke and meant.

so i must ask you, is the qur'an written in the original language of jesus or any of the other prophets? how can we know what they really said if muslims no longer have these books? i'm simply using your very own language and logic against you. will you now deny your own words?

the new testament was written in greek in order to for the widest possible audience to have access to it. prior to this, the old testament was translated into greek by the jews so that there could be a greater access to it. if the new testament was meant only for the jews then perhaps you would have a point. but given that it was meant for the whole world and greek was the lingua franca during the time of its composition, it was thus written in greek. do you not understand the logic? it is the same reason why english is so important today because it is the language which can give you the widest access. what is so illogical about this?

once again naidamar, do you have the original words of jesus in the original language? while my point was based on having the original meaning, yours was based on having the original words and so can you produce for us the original injil in the original language of christ? after that, can you produce for us the original torah? basically, working your way back from christ, can you produce any of the original revelations of the supposedly thousands of prophets whom the muslim deity had sent in their original languages? if you can't then how can you be sure of what they taught? are you then not placing your faith (in the case of the new testament) on a seventh century book that unlike the new testament was not written under the direction of the disciples of jesus? once again, you simply have refuted yourself naidamar.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Can you please give us the original narration in the original language?

Gladly. Since the topic of the thread has to do with the manner in which Christians pray, I'll provide the original narration only for the Acts 7 passage that deals with a Christian praying:

και ελιθοβολουν τον στεφανον επικαλουμενον και λεγοντα κυριε ιησου δεξαι το πνευμα μου θεις δε τα γονατα εκραξεν φωνη μεγαλη κυριε μη στησης αυτοις ταυτην την αμαρτιαν και τουτο ειπων εκοιμηθη

You don't suppose Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples spoke to each others in modern english, do you?

No. Given that so many of them were Galileans, several of them were known to engage in commerce or were formerly employeed by the Romans and that they spent a proponderance of their time in the Gentile communities around the north side of Lake Tiberias I suppose that when they were out in public they probably primarily spoke Greek.

 

[Ramadhan]

so i must ask you, is the qur'an written in the original language of jesus or any of the other prophets? how can we know what they really said if muslims no longer have these books? i'm simply using your very own language and logic against you. will you now deny your own words?

I am actually applying the same standard and logic to both Qur'an and Gospels. To ensure authenticity of the scriptures, they have to be preserved and in the original language where the words of God was revealed. This has been what I am asking all along. You are the one who is trying to obfuscate the matter and twist it.

There are also at least two important points where you chose to ignore:

1. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the direct words from Allah SWT revealed through Muhammad SAW, and everything in the Qur'an is either direct commands or narration from Allah SWT. The central and only point of view in the Qur'an is Allah SWT, while prophets (pbut) are characters in the narration. Allah revealed the stories in arabic because the messenger was an arab (and a complete illiterate at that) and the society was a 7th century desert arab communities. And the Qur'an has been fully preserved from its revelation.
Now tell me, did Jesus spoke koine greek or some other language that he might have used (maybe aramaic, ancient hebrew?). By applying the same standard and logic, the gospel should have not been in koine greek.

2. Qur'an is very clear, especially on the issue of who we worship. In fact, in the Qur'an, Jesus (pbuh) pleads with Allah SWT that he didn't teach his people (nasrani) to worship him. Meanwhile, from english bibles, the issue of who should be worshiped is quite murky, and this is because in the english bibles, there are some verses that narrated how some people "worship" jesus, while in some other bibles it is translated as "obeisance", or "pay respect". Therefore, it is very important to know exactly what was really meant originally. You and I both know that the first oral narrations of Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples/people could not have been conducted in koine greek, especially the koine greek of the 4th century.

 

[Ramadhan]

No. Given that so many of them were Galileans, several of them were known to engage in commerce or were formerly employeed by the Romans and that they spent a proponderance of their time in the Gentile communities around the north side of Lake Tiberias I suppose that when they were out in public they probably primarily spoke Greek.

Are you claiming that Jesus (pbuh) spoke 4th century greek with his disciples?

 

[Ramadhan]

Before this thread goes way off-topic, let's go back to the questions:

Why don't majority christians today do their acts of worships as prescribed and taught by Jesus (pbuh)?
Why do majority churches/christians choose not to follow the examples by Jesus (pbuh)?

 

[UsayIsaIsayGod]

To ensure authenticity of the scriptures, they have to be preserved and in the original language where the words of God was revealed.

I do not believe this. I believe God gave man the intellectual capacity to accurately communicate between any number of different languages.

 

[Sol Invictus]

incredible, in your post you claim that given the intentions of the muslim deity (that is, revealing the message to arabs), the supposed words of the old testament prophets are not in their original languages but rather in arabic. then you turn around and claim that the christian understanding as it concerns the intentions of god, (that is, he wished to spread the gospel to the widest possible majority and during that time, this could only be done in greek, the gospel was therefore written in greek) is wholly incorrect even though they both work on the same principles. once again you only shoot yourself in the foot naidamar.

Are you claiming that Jesus (pbuh) spoke 4th century greek with his disciples?

naidamar, what exactly about the koine greek of the new testament makes it 4th century? could you give us the difference between 1 century koine greek and 4th century and where in the new testament did the writers use words which clearly speak to a 4th century rendition rather than a 1st? once again you conveniently ignore that prior to the christian era the old testament was translated into greek and used by the jews themselves! of course christians would then write in greek because this was in keeping with the lingua franca of the day. please begin to disprove this logic before making claims that are so completely wrong.

Why don't majority christians today do their acts of worships as prescribed and taught by Jesus (pbuh)?
Why do majority churches/christians choose not to follow the examples by Jesus (pbuh)?

more importantly, the question should be, why are you so busy ignoring all the passages which have been presented so far. case in point, why have you particularly ignored the fact that the angels in heaven themselves worship christ as god as he sits on the very throne of god? your claim is that christians supposedly don't follow the bible and yet when we bring you all these passages from the bible where christ is worshiped by his disciples, where he tells people to pray standing up, where he asks to be honoured exactly as the father is honoured, where he is worshiped in heaven as he sits on the throne of god, you conveniently ignore these and then pretend that nothing on the matter has been presented so far.

in order to disprove the above, you tried to bring up the matter of the original languages and while we have already shown your position to be illogical and self-refuting, the biggest problem is that you are inconsistent. the muslims in this thread and the person in the video brought up passages from the new testament which at first seemed to support their claims but when passages from the exact new testament are brought forth to show how the muslim position is in error, the muslim argument suddenly switches to making claims that because the words are not in aramaic or hebrew then they prove nothing. but wait, weren't muslims just bring forth passages from the very same new testament to support their claims? inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and once again naidamar, you have shot the muslim position in the foot. inconsistency and non-sequitur's are the only things you have brought to this thread.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Are you claiming that Jesus (pbuh) spoke 4th century greek with his disciples?

No, 1st century Greek. But that's really a side issue.

With regard to the topic of the thread, you asked for the passage describing Stephen in prayer in the original language it was spoken in and I have given it. The Acts 7, passage I quoted, wasn't Jesus speaking. It was Stephen, who was a Hellenized, Greek-speaking Jew who became a Christian and was selected to assist with ministering to the Greek-speaking widows of the fledgling Christian community. His story was witnessed and recorded by other Greek speakers. So, I think we can be confident that it accurately describes how Christianized Jews prayed.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Before this thread goes way off-topic, let's go back to the questions:

Why don't majority christians today do their acts of worships as prescribed and taught by Jesus (pbuh)?
Why do majority churches/christians choose not to follow the examples by Jesus (pbuh)?

Actually we do. Why do you say that we don't? Do you think that Jesus taught that the only acceptable way to pray was prostrate like he did in the Garden of Gethsamane? It wasn't. In fact, that is the only time that it is recorded that Jesus ever prayed in that fashion, and I shouldn't be surprised that the reason it is mentioned is precisely because it was atypical. Indeed, the most common way for a first-century Jew to pray was on his feet. And Jesus never critiqued this as being wrong. Indeed, on at least one occassion he set that manner of praying forth as a model to be followed:

Luke 18

Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

And in Luke's account of Jesus praying in the Garden he tells us that Jesus initially knelt down in prayer. But other than telling stories of people standing to pray, Jesus never once gives instruction regarding one's physical posture in prayer. He only comments on the attitude of one's heart. So, if you are focused on the physical outside position of the body and not the internal position of the soul, I would suggest that you are focused on something different than Jesus taught those who followed him to focus on.

 

[Ramadhan]

incredible, in your post you claim that given the intentions of the muslim deity (that is, revealing the message to arabs), the supposed words of the old testament prophets are not in their original languages but rather in arabic.

not only that. You conveniently forgot the part where the message revealed to prophet Muhammad SAW, who was an arab and an illiterate one at that.

Just a side question: you keep saying "muslim deity", so does it mean that Allah is not god?
This question may not be appropriate for this thread, but it is my curiosity as you keep preferring that word instead of god. Various christians I met believe that prophet Muhammad SAW received revelation from God, so if who is this "muslims deity" you keep saying about?

then you turn around and claim that the christian understanding as it concerns the intentions of god, (that is, he wished to spread the gospel to the widest possible majority and during that time, this could only be done in greek, the gospel was therefore written in greek) is wholly incorrect even though they both work on the same principles. once again you only shoot yourself in the foot naidamar.

There are so many holes in your argument, because it is clear you only want to hear your own voice and the voices of early rabbis and priests and unknown scribes, instead of what Jesus (pbuh) said and commanded. Also it is clear that you want to obfuscate the core of the matter (ie. the authenticity of what Jesus actually said) with a lot of words and argument.
So let's see if among the gospels we can still uncover some truth:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6)
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24)

From the verses it is clear that the message of Jesus was intended only for the israelites, not for the greeks, neither for the europeans.
Also, can yo give me evidence that Jesus (pbuh) spoke greek to his disciples if you so insist that the words of God revealed to Jesus were in Koine greek?
You have been avoiding this matter and muddle it up with everything else.

naidamar, what exactly about the koine greek of the new testament makes it 4th century?

Is your question really genuine or do you really not to know the history of your own bible?
The oldest surviving Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century; the oldest complete Jewish Bible is a Greek translation, also dating to the 4th century. The oldest complete manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (the masoretic text) date from the Middle Ages.

could you give us the difference between 1 century koine greek and 4th century and where in the new testament did the writers use words which clearly speak to a 4th century rendition rather than a 1st?

Again, you try to muddle up the matter here. the question is less whether it's 1st century or 4th century greek, but the question is whether jesus and his disciples and his followers (who were all jews/israelites) used greek to communicate between them, and the question is also whether the words of God were revealed to Jesus in greek. So far all studies stated no.
And even then, say the jews of israel communicated to each other in 1st century greek (instead of either aramaic or ancient hebrew), do you really not think that after 4 centuries, the meanings of words shifted?

As we all know from every languages, words, vocabs and their meanings shift and evolve.
If not, why do you think bible is continually revised? Why was there a need to create New International Version to replace King James Version?
so a translation from a translation from a translation from a translation while the original is already lost.
sounds familiar?
Yes, it is a chinese whisper, which is exactly what bible is.

more importantly, the question should be, why are you so busy ignoring all the passages which have been presented so far. case in point, why have you particularly ignored the fact that the angels in heaven themselves worship christ as god as he sits on the very throne of god? your claim is that christians supposedly don't follow the bible and yet when we bring you all these passages from the bible where christ is worshiped by his disciples, where he tells people to pray standing up, where he asks to be honoured exactly as the father is honoured, where he is worshiped in heaven as he sits on the throne of god, you conveniently ignore these and then pretend that nothing on the matter has been presented so far.

You said I ignored the verses that presented here, but I am also saying you ignored bible verses about Jesus worshipping God. So this means there are a lot of contradictions in the bible.
It seems christians follow everyone else especially paul but not Jesus (pbuh) when it comes to worshipping God.
And you said jesus asked to be honoured exaclty as the father is honoured, and jesus prostrated to the father, then why don't christians incorporate prostration as a part of their act of worship?

 

[Ramadhan]

Actually we do. Why do you say that we don't? Do you think that Jesus taught that the only acceptable way to pray was prostrate like he did in the Garden of Gethsamane? It wasn't. In fact, that is the only time that it is recorded that Jesus ever prayed in that fashion, and I shouldn't be surprised that the reason it is mentioned is precisely because it was atypical. Indeed, the most common way for a first-century Jew to pray was on his feet. And Jesus never critiqued this as being wrong. Indeed, on at least one occassion he set that manner of praying forth as a model to be followed:
And in Luke's account of Jesus praying in the Garden he tells us that Jesus initially knelt down in prayer. But other than telling stories of people standing to pray, Jesus never once gives instruction regarding one's physical posture in prayer. He only comments on the attitude of one's heart. So, if you are focused on the physical outside position of the body and not the internal position of the soul, I would suggest that you are focused on something different than Jesus taught those who followed him to focus on.

Please show evidence where 1st century jews did not incorporate prostration as part of the act of worship.
As the video clips in the previous posts showed, even today orthodox jews prostrate as part of their regular prayers.

The problem with christianity is that the accounts of Jesus (pbuh) in the bible is very thin, as other gospels were rejected by nicea council and the disciples and the jews themselves did not record much of everyday sayings and accounts of Jesus (pbuh).

You said intention of the heart is the only thing that is important.
I dont agree with that, both action and intention are important.

Also, if christians so intent to follow jesus (pbuh), why dont they also try to follow his actions as closely as possible?

 

[Ramadhan]

No, 1st century Greek. But that's really a side issue.

So you are claiming the Jesus (pbuh) spoke to his disciples and followers in 1st century greek?
Please show us the evidence.

With regard to the topic of the thread, you asked for the passage describing Stephen in prayer in the original language it was spoken in and I have given it. The Acts 7, passage I quoted, wasn't Jesus speaking. It was Stephen, who was a Hellenized, Greek-speaking Jew who became a Christian and was selected to assist with ministering to the Greek-speaking widows of the fledgling Christian community. His story was witnessed and recorded by other Greek speakers. So, I think we can be confident that it accurately describes how Christianized Jews prayed.

Is this another evidence that christians follow everyone else (on this case stephen) in the act of worship, instead of jesus (pbuh)?

 

[Grace Seeker]

why don't christians incorporate prostration as a part of their act of worship?

Have you read this thread? This question has already been asked and answered multiple times. We do. We have even posted video examples.

You assert things that are not true as though they are and fail to see other things that are true as being so. As a result you have a messed up view of what Christianity is really like. But the fault isn't with Christianity, but with your inability to realize what is and isn't true.

Christian do pray by prostrating.

Christains also pray kneeling, sitting, standing, jogging, driving, parachuting, swimming, riding bicycles, and in a myriad other positions, indeed we are taught to pray without ceasing.

Jesus never taught his disciples a particular preferred posture for prayer. So, we are neither keeping nor breaking Jesus' instructions with regard how to pray when we pray.

Jesus' disciples did stand when they prayed. See Mark 11:25. Other Jews did as well. See Matthew 6:5.
You asked for a source on the prayer posture practiced by first-century Jews:

those Forms of Adoration described in the oldest portions of the Mishnah date from the pre-Christian time. About the time of Jesus there was a dispute between the Hillelites and the Shammaites concerning the proper attitude in which to recite the Shema'. The latter, in opposition to the former, who were indifferent as to posture, insisted that this prayer must be said standing in the morning; but that, in the evening, the aforementioned posture of solemn inclination was the appropriate one. This dispute lasted until nearly the end of the first Christian century (Mishnah Ber. i. 3). The chief prayer, the Eighteen Benedictions, was, however, always said standing (Mishnah Ber. v. 1; Gem. 30a). Hence the name "'Amidah" (Standing) for the Eighteen Benedictions.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=855&letter=A#ixzz1JrcysJbq​

The three principal postures of the body at prayer prevalent among Jews in the time of Jesus—standing, kneeling, and prostration—were adopted by the Christians, at times to the minutest details. Among the early Christians the most customary of all the Forms of Adoration was standing, adopted from the Jewish attitude during the "Eighteen Benedictions"—the prayer of prayers. This may be seen from the numerous illustrations of that time in Aringhi's "Roma Subterranea," Rome, 1651-59. Their outspread hands and their faces turned eastward correspond exactly with the Jewish customs already mentioned, namely, with the ancient practise of turning toward Palestine, which for Jews in Europe is eastward, and with the practise prevalent in all synagogues, of placing the ark in the eastern wall. The custom of kneeling, especially in private prayer, was likewise adopted by the earliest Christians (Luke, xxii. 41; Acts, vii. 60; ix. 40; xxi. 5; Eph. iii. 14, etc.) and became general (see "Hermæ Pastor," i. 1; Clemens Romanus, i. 48; Tertullian, "Ad Scapulam," iv.; Origen, "De Oratione," xxxi.). Less prevalent in the early days of Christianity was the prostration to the ground, employed only on special occasions (Socrates, "Historia Ecclesiastica," iii. 13, 17). How completely the Church ritual of early times was dominated by the Synagogue is shown by the usage prevalent in the Christian Church, and mentioned by Tertullian ("De Corona Militis," iii.), that on Sunday, and during the whole week of Pentecost, prayer was not to be said kneeling. The synagogal custom (minhag), as old as the first Christian century, omits the prostration on all festivals and semi-festivals (B. M. 59b).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=855&letter=A#ixzz1JrdiuPdG​

Jews today also pray in mulitple positions and postures, sometimes prostrated, but not always. Jews also pray both standing and seated during passover meals that I have attended.

Jesus prayed in multiple positions. It is specifically recorded that he prayed both face to the ground and also kneeling. Since Jesus disciples and other Jews are reported to have prayed standing, it is likely that Jesus did as well and it is not specifically reported because this was the most common way to pray (see above material from the Jewish Encyclopedia).




HOW MANY DIFFERENT POSTURES IN PRAYER ARE MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE?

1. Sitting (Acts 2:1-4 [Pentecost], Elijah under a broom tree - 1 Kings 19:4)
2. Dancing (2 Samuel 6:14)
3. Head bowed (Luke 18:13, Gen 24:26, Acts 21:5)
4. Publican smoke his breast (Luke 18:13)
5. Standing (Mark 11:25)
6. Prostrate on the ground (Joshua 5:14; Matthew 26:39 [Christ])
7. While lying sick (Psalm 4:4, 63:6; 2 Kings 20:1-3)
8. Kneeling (Daniel 6:10)
9. With hands raised (1 Timothy 2:8)
10. Elijah stretched his body over a widow's dead son
11. Stephen prayed while looking into heaven (Acts 7:54-60)
12. Peter prayed while walking on the water (Matthew 14:30)
13. While hanging on a cross (Luke 23:42)
14. Jonah prayed in the belly of a fish (Jonah 2:1). We can only imagine what bodily posture that would have required.
15. With eyes open (Christ - John 17:1, 11:41, Matthew 14:19)
16. Praying with their mouth moving (Hannah - 1 Samuel 1:12-13)
17. In stocks while in prison (Paul & Silas - Acts 16:24-25) 18. Hand laid on other people (First 7 deacons - Acts 6:5-6; Christ laying hands of little children - Matthew 19:13-15) 19. Clapping hands (Psalm 47:1)​

 

[Grace Seeker]

So you are claiming the Jesus (pbuh) spoke to his disciples and followers in 1st century greek?
Please show us the evidence.

YUP!!

It is commonly held that Jesus spoke only Aramaic. Contrary to this notion, Jesus used Aramaic or Greek according to the demand of the occasion. He regularly taught and ministered to Hellenized crowds and individuals in Greek. In fact, he conversed in Greek not only with Greek-speaking “Gentiles,” but also with Jews.

Two of Jesus’ siblings are the supposed writers of the New Testament books of Jude and James. Their Greek proficiency level reflects early language acquisition coupled with formal training. It would be unthinkable that Jesus’ brothers, with whom Jesus grew up, would be so proficient in Greek while Jesus was not. Of course some dispute there authorship as Jesus' actual brothers, but none dispute that they were written by 1st century Jews and in Greek. Like other Jews of the day, Jesus (and his brothers) grew up speaking Aramaic and Greek and being educated in both.

The Jews who gathered to hear Jesus in the synagogues and in the temple knew that he could teach also in Greek. It is in fact the Jews that inform us that Jesus did teach in Greek. The following is recorded about Jesus' activities in the Gospel of John: "Where does this man [Jesus] intend to go that we will not find him? Will he go to those scattered [among the] Greeks and teach the Greeks?" (John 7:35) The question the Jews are asking here is related to wherethey could find Jesus, not whether Jesus could teach in Greek. These first-hand eyewitnesses of Jesus’ teaching methods obviously knew that Jesus taught in Greek.

Jesus ministered extensively in Galilee where were many Greek-speaking traders and travelers. He taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also around Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia), where Greek was necessary, and conversed with a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman. East of the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus ministered, the Gadarene swine owners came to beg Jesus to leave their region; and in Samaria, a region heavily Hellenized, he spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well. Near Caesaria-Philippi, another Greek region, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the mountain after his Transformation. During the Sermon on the Mount Jesus spoke to people from Decapolis and Perea, a region predominantly Hellenized, besides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea, Tyre and Sidon, and Idumaea. In Capernaum he conversed with the Roman centurion, as he did later with Pilate in the praetorium. It is hardly possible that Jesus communicated with such crowds or individuals in Aramaic. To put it another way, it is hardly possible that these Greek-speaking “Gentiles” spoke or even understood any Aramaic.

Jesus at times spoke even with Jews in Greek. Encounters Jesus had with Jewish individuals reveal that he used Greek more extensively than presumed. Semantic elements peculiar to Greek provide insights that are in harmony with the thought pattern and outcome of certain dialogues. Consider the following:

Peter and Jesus
In John 21:15-17 Jesus asks Peter, “Do you love me?” He asks this question twice, both times using the verb agapó (15, 16). Peter responds each time using a different verb, philéo—as if to say that he can only say he cares for Jesus but feels unworthy to say that he loves him. When Jesus asks Peter a third time he uses not the verb agapó (as he did the first two times), but Peter’s verb, philó. It is as though Jesus is saying, “Even so, Peter, do you care for me as a friend?” In Peter’s ears each question has a ring of forgiveness for each time he denied Jesus. But in the third question Peter sees Jesus willing to not only accept him as he is, but also to step down to his own expression of unworthiness and lift him up. Peter feels overwhelmed. The absence of this distinction in most translations leads the reader to surmise that Peter’s “grief” was caused by the fact that Jesus asked him the same question three times. While Jesus’ thrice-asked question was undoubtedly a caustic reminder to Peter of his denial of Jesus three times, the Greek text shows that it is how Jesus rephrased his question the third time that triggered Peter’s sorrowfulness (rather than the fact that he asked Peter the same question three times), a distinction not allowable in English or in Aramaic.

That Jesus and Peter could freely converse in Greek as they could in Aramaic does not sound remote to a thoroughly bilingual person. This situation is hardly different today from that in which two close friends, or brothers, both from Mexico but raised in a bilingual community in Los Angeles, end up at times conversing in their own hometown in Mexico intimately, and just as naturally, in English.
As a fisherman, Peter of necessity spoke Greek, the common language of the mixed multitudes in Galilee. Regarded as uneducated (Acts 4:13), he nevertheless proved to be an effective public speaker. On the Day of Pentecost we see Peter delivering an eloquent speech (Acts 2:14-36) to the multilingual multitudes (2:9-11) whose common language was Greek, and in Acts 10 preaching in the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. Had Peter been limited on these and other occasions to the use of Aramaic alone, his ministry—and fishing business—would have been seriously hampered, if not impossible.

Nicodemus and Jesus
John gives an account of a Pharisee named Nicodemus, an admirer of Jesus. Nicodemus is resolved to find out for himself once and for all who Jesus truly is, so he visits Jesus secretly by night and attempts to size up the Master (John 3). “Master,” Nicodemus says, “we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no man can do the wonders you do except God be with him.” Jesus brushes his visitor’s introductory accolades aside and immediately brings into the discussion a topic unrelated to Nicodemus’ inquiry, yet more relevant to his spiritual need: “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus says, “unless one is born from above (ánothen), he cannot see the kingdom of God”. The adverb ánothen comes from áno “above” + -qen –then, a suffix denoting origin of motion from a locality, hence, “from above.” In New Testament times ánothen also meant “(over) again,” “anew,” or “a second time.” It becomes clear from the rest of the dialogue that what Jesus relates to Nicodemus is the need for every person’s spiritual birth, a birth related to the Spirit from above and to heavenly things (above), specifically to the only one who “came down from heaven” —o ánothen erhómenos --“the-from-abovecoming one”.

Jesus’ use of ánothen takes place early in the dialogue—before Nicodemus has had ample opportunity to “test” Jesus and form a solid opinion of him. While it may sound logical that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus (as some Bible translations intimate for lack of an obvious alternative), the likelihood cannot be discounted that Nicodemus’ misunderstanding was intentional, particularly because the opportunity for a witty wordplay appeared enticing. Jesus seemed to have rashly plunged himself into a quagmire with the words he had uttered—a welcome chance for an audacious Nicodemus: “How can a man, being old, be born?” Nicodemus says with an air of sanctimony. “Is it possible for him to enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?”. Jesus patiently explains the need for every human being born from the womb (water) to be born also of the spirit. But when Nicodemus makes a thwarted attempt to challenge Jesus a third time—albeit awe-struck by who he had probably by now found Jesus to be—and groping for words, mutters, “How can these things be?”, he receives a jolting exclamation of surprise from Jesus, who tells him that as a leading teacher of Israel he should know better than to be puzzled by such truths. Nicodemus was a well-educated rabbinic Pharisee. Like Paul, and judging by his Greek name Nikóthimos “people’s victor,” which is suggestive of strong Hellenistic influence, he was a Hellenized Pharisee; and, as such, most capable of an instantaneous linguistic twist in his conversation with Jesus. Jesus used this “people’s victor” to reveal insights that hinged on a bifurcated Greek word that allowed the dialogue to take the double path it did.

I suspect that Jesus even spoke Greek from the cross. I know you are familiar with Jesus' famous cry from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). What Matthew reports there is actually a quotation from Psalm 22 in Hebrew: “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” But "Eli, Eli" sounds very similar to "ilía, ilía" which is the Greek name for the prophet Elijah. And lo and behold, this is exactly what Matthew reports that some people misunderstood Jesus to have been crying out. Now, why would they have misunderstood Jesus quoting a famous Psalm in Hebrew? Because many (not all) of the people gathered around the cross were more accustomed to hearing Greek. Who were these bystanders, whose ears were so attuned to Greek but who also knew about the prophet Elijah, except Greeks or Greek-speaking individuals that mingled with Jews?

Lastly, Jesus gathers all of his disciples to him before his ascension and commissions them to go into all the world. That world was a Greek-speaking world. If they only spoke Aramaic they could not have left Palestine. Indeed they would have been virtually restricted to Jerusalem and the area immediately around it. The only way they could even hope to attempt the mission that Jesus had set before them was if they spoke Greek.

Now, I'm not saying that Jesus always spoke Greek. There are enough Aramaic words that are used in the Greek text of the New Testament to know that there were also times when either he or his disciples spoke Aramaic. But there is likewise no doubt that they also spoke Greek. My personal guess is that not only were they bi-lingual, they might have been tri-lingual. And then Jesus in his ministry, being thoroughly multi-lingual, used Aramaic or Greek, Hebrew or Latin based on the demand of the occasion. And though it may not always be possible to determine what words of Jesus in the Greek text were spoken in Greek and what words were translated from Aramaic, a safe way to hear all of Jesus’ sayings is the way they were recorded: in Greek.

 

[Sol Invictus]

There are so many holes in your argument, because it is clear you only want to hear your own voice and the voices of early rabbis and priests and unknown scribes, instead of what Jesus (pbuh) said and commanded. Also it is clear that you want to obfuscate the core of the matter (ie. the authenticity of what Jesus actually said) with a lot of words and argument.
So let's see if among the gospels we can still uncover some truth:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6)
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24)

From the verses it is clear that the message of Jesus was intended only for the israelites, not for the greeks, neither for the europeans.

naidamar, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and in this case this is completely true:

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” --- Matthew 28:16-20 NIV

here i've quoted from the very book you claim does not teach the universality of the gospel. until christ was ressurected, the gospel was to remain in israel but once he had paid for the sins of the world, he commanded his disciples to spread the message to the entire world. once again, during this time greek would have been the language which the majority of people would have understood and this is why the gospels were written in greek. here are other passages which specifically say that the gospel is meant for the whole world:

44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures; 46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 Ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high. --- Luke 24:44-49 ASV

4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me: 5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. 6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority. 8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. --- Acts 1:4-8 ASV

so we see that when we are actually unbiased in presenting the evidence from the bible, the points actually disprove the muslim position. notice how many times the muslim argument has been disproven when we simply let the bible speak for itself?

You said I ignored the verses that presented here, but I am also saying you ignored bible verses about Jesus worshipping God. So this means there are a lot of contradictions in the bible.
It seems christians follow everyone else especially paul but not Jesus (pbuh) when it comes to worshipping God.

who says that i ignored those verses. in fact i agree with them whole heartedly. the christian claim is that christ is both god and man and as man he submitted himself to the law and indeed prayed to the father yet as god he would have no need to do so. any verse you bring up which show that christ worships the father fits in nicely with the christian claim that christ is both god and man but the verses where jesus is outright worshiped by the hosts of heaven as he sits on the very throne of god cannot be made to fit your understanding that jesus is only man. so no, it is only you who ignores the verses that disprove your point. there is no verse you can bring from the bible that will disprove the christian understanding for we believe the bible as a whole and don't just present parts of it (as you tried to do with the matter of the worship of christ and the universality of the gospel).

that said, it has been shown that jesus prayed in a variety of ways and that the prophets prayed in a variety of ways and christians incorporate this in their worship. there is no problem with that at all. it simply is you who once again ignores all these various ways in which prayer has been directed towards god.

And even then, say the jews of israel communicated to each other in 1st century greek (instead of either aramaic or ancient hebrew), do you really not think that after 4 centuries, the meanings of words shifted?

please give us evidence to back up your claim that the koine greek within the gospels testify to a 4th century rendition rather than a 1st century one. please cite for us passages within the bible and show us which 1st century greek word should have been used instead of the 4th century one. furthermore, it is not an either or thing. simply because they were israelites would not mean that they couldn't speak greek as well. i am not french nor german but at one time i could speak four languages fluently (i've since lost my german and now can only speak 3 languages) and i could very well write in these languages instead of my mother tongue if i indeed wanted to reach the largest possible audience. hence clearly, your point proves nothing.

Just a side question: you keep saying "muslim deity", so does it mean that Allah is not god?
This question may not be appropriate for this thread, but it is my curiosity as you keep preferring that word instead of god.

i use this term because i do not believe that the manner in which god is presented in the qur'an is accurate at all. i try not to directly call the muslim deity allah (and when i do it is only to be taken as the name of the god of the qur'an and not as an acceptance of the belief that the allah in the qur'an is the true god) seeing as this means god and i don't believe that the muslim deity is the one true god at all. i certainly don't know about the christians you've met though i'm sure that we both can say a lot of things about the beliefs of people whom we've supposedly met.

 

[UsayIsaIsayGod]

Jesus:

Mark 11
25And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

 

[gmcbroom]

I htink UsayIsaIsayGod,

Just illustrated the point that biblically speaking, it may not be so much what position you're in when you pray, just that you pray.

Peace be with you

 

[Iconodule]

Orthodox Christians prostrate regularly in their worship. The only time when prostration is not done is on Sunday.