Jesus Prayed with His Face to the Ground
One God and, in the Islamic understanding, one original message: how the intertwining of religion and political power has contributed to the divisions and conflicts that still run through society today.
“And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
John 17:3 — translated from Giovanni Diodati’s Italian version.
In my reading, this demonstrates tawḥīd, the oneness of God. John 17:3 is consistent with this principle because Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God” and distinguishes himself as the one who has been sent.
The confusion begins with AI itself. Here I share a dialogue with artificial intelligence, intended to guide the reader through this reflection.
It shows how an apparently simple question can open up much deeper issues. I had asked for chapter 6 of the Bible to explain an important concept.
AI: “Which book of the Bible do you mean—for example, Genesis, Matthew, or John, chapter 6?”
Later in the exchange, referring to the text from Matthew, I clarified:
Me: “I want the original.”
AI: “The original text of the Gospel of Matthew is in Ancient Greek. What I gave you is an Italian translation from 1607, which is why the language sounds antiquated. Would you like the Greek text of Matthew 6:5–15, or a modern German translation faithful to the Greek?”
Me: “But isn’t it in the Bible?”
AI: “Yes, it is in the Bible, in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 6, verses 5–15, in the New Testament. Sorry for the confusion: the version I gave you is an old German translation of the Bible. When I said ‘original,’ I meant the language in which the Gospel was written, namely Greek. You will find this same passage in the German Bible too, with different wording depending on the translation.”
For me, the confusion begins with the preliminaries. How can one believe in a Bible when there are so many? It is a question that arises when encountering different books, languages, and translations.
I want to approach the subject discussed here in a simple way. That is why I ask AI a similar question about the Qur’an. I am familiar with both chapters/verses, but since many people now rely on chatbots—and unfortunately trust them too much—let us begin discussing the subject through this tool, perhaps encouraging you to open books again.
Me: “Give me surah 6 of the Qur’an.”
AI: “Surah 6 of the Qur’an is Al-Anʿām, ‘The Cattle,’ and it consists of 165 verses. Would you like the full text in German or a specific verse?”
Here, the starting point is clear: one Qur’an, one surah 6, 165 verses.
But let us continue, returning to the Gospel.
AI: “Matthew 6:6, in my own modern German translation:
‘But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.’
Here, Jesus teaches people to address their prayers to God, calling him ‘Father’; the verse does not describe Jesus praying.”
Me: “Exactly the answer I wanted: ‘He teaches people to address their prayers to God, calling him Father.’ So Jesus is not the Son of God?”
AI: “In the Christian faith, Jesus is the Son of God, and that is precisely why he addresses God as ‘Father.’ The title ‘Son’ does not indicate biological descent.
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father and the Son are distinct persons, together with the Holy Spirit, within the one God. Jesus can therefore pray to the Father without this contradicting his divinity in Christian theology.
In Islam, by contrast, Jesus is a prophet and the Messiah, but he is neither God nor his Son: his prayer is understood as that of a messenger addressing the Creator.
Matthew 6:6 therefore shows that Jesus teaches people to pray to the Father; on its own, this verse does not settle the question of his divine nature.”
Me: “You are contradicting yourself. Jesus teaches people to pray to the Father? If God is the Creator and is not part of creation, what does it mean to say that he has a Son? How is this concept different from the way created beings produce offspring?”
AI: “You are right to ask for clarification: earlier, I presented the Christian position without distinguishing sufficiently between what the verse says and how it is interpreted.
In Christianity, ‘Son of God’ does not mean that God had a child. It does not imply a mother, a sexual relationship, or the birth of divinity. According to Trinitarian doctrine, the Son exists eternally: he was not created and does not come after the Father in time. Being born of Mary concerns Jesus in his humanity.
So, in answer to your question: there is not necessarily a contradiction. In Christian theology, teaching people to pray to the Father does not rule out being the Son.
Christianity distinguishes between being begotten and being created: the Son is described as ‘begotten, not made.’ This does not mean that God had a child or that the Son began to exist: it refers to an eternal relationship within the one God. Jesus prays to the Father in his human condition.
Taken on its own, Matthew 6:6 says to pray to the Father. It neither demonstrates the Trinity nor states that Jesus is God. That is a doctrine Christians base on their reading of Scripture as a whole.”
Me: “The Son exists eternally? I thought human beings were mortal.”
AI: “Yes, human beings are mortal. Earlier, I should have specified: ‘According to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Son exists eternally.’
This doctrine distinguishes between:
The eternal Son, whose nature is divine and who has no beginning;
The human life of Jesus, which begins with conception in Mary’s womb and includes a real death.
For Christians, this is the same person with two natures, divine and human: Jesus dies in his humanity, while his divine nature does not cease to exist.
This is a statement of Christian faith, not a characteristic attributed to human beings in general. In Islam, by contrast, Jesus is human and does not possess a divine nature.”
This could go on for hours. My impression is that neither any Christian nor any AI can sustain an argument that fully explains the concept of the Trinity without leaving these questions unresolved.
But let us take things in order.
Jesus cannot be half person and half God. AI itself specifies that Christian doctrine speaks of one person who is fully human and fully divine. And this is precisely where my question arises: if I am one hundred per cent God and know everything, how can I simultaneously be one hundred per cent human, with the limitations inherent in the human condition?
In my view, Christianity does not answer these questions convincingly. If he does not know, if he is weak, how can he be God? Because God is the one who knows.
This is not about deciding who is more intelligent, but about seeking the truth.
Let us consider Matthew 26:36–39, particularly verse 39:
“Going a little further, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, saying: ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not as I will, but as you will.’”
Hadn’t AI said that
“the verse does not describe Jesus praying”?
Here, Jesus addresses the Father and submits to his will. And notice the gesture: he falls with his face to the ground.
In the Qur’an, Jesus is a prophet, and Muslims also pray by prostrating themselves with their faces to the ground. This connection brings me to the next question.
My objection is this: where are the Bible verses that explicitly support these Christian doctrines? The Bible does not say that Jesus is “half man and half God”; indeed, Christian doctrine itself does not formulate it in those terms either. But where does it state unequivocally that he is God Almighty, the Creator of the earth and the heavens, or a person of the Trinity? In my reading, I do not find these statements expressed as clearly and directly as I would expect.
The conversation continues, turning to the crucifixion.
AI: “According to the predominant Islamic interpretation of Qur’an 4:157–158, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified: God raised him to Himself. This therefore refers to his being raised up, not to a resurrection after crucifixion.
The Qur’an calls for a distinction between knowledge and supposition. In surah Al-Isrāʾ, ‘The Night Journey,’ 17:36, it states: ‘Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge,’ reminding human beings of their responsibility for what they hear, see, and hold in their hearts.
This reminder also appears in relation to Jesus in surah An-Nisāʾ, ‘The Women,’ 4:157: ‘They neither killed him nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them.’ The verse goes on to describe the doubt of those who disagree about the matter and their reliance on conjecture.
Both passages call for caution in speech and for the responsibility not to present supposition as certain knowledge.”
My reflection is this: people believed that it was God who was crucified, whereas in the Qur’an, God draws attention to the lack of certain knowledge among those who discuss what happened. Saying that “God was killed and crucified” is not the same as stating a historical fact: it already means attributing a divine identity to the person believed to have been crucified.
Who can say they witnessed and established this—that is, the death of God? Yet, in my experience, this is what is still taught in Christian religious education today.
In this, I recognise the truth of the Qur’anic reminder: what appears to be true or is believed is not necessarily the same as what is known with certainty.
People also believe because there is a prevailing view, a shared conviction. But this can be dangerous when consensus takes the place of inquiry.
God is precise, perfect: why would he have left an imperfect Bible? In my reading, I encounter too many contradictions.
At this point, the question of languages also arises in the conversation.
AI: “The Bible was not originally written in a single language: its books were composed in different periods, primarily in Hebrew for the Old Testament, with some passages in Aramaic, and in Koine Greek for the New Testament.
Some Old Testament books included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have come down to us in Greek. Jesus spoke mainly Aramaic, whereas the Gospels have been transmitted to us in Greek: it is therefore necessary to distinguish between the language Jesus spoke and the language in which the accounts of his life and teachings were written.
The Qur’an is written in Arabic, but some words are linked to Aramaic, particularly Syriac, a variety also used by Christian communities.
Examples discussed include ṣalāt (‘prayer’) and zakāt (‘ritual almsgiving,’ carrying the meaning of purification).
From a perspective of faith, the linguistic closeness between Arabic and Aramaic can be read as an intentional reminder of the continuity of the prophets’ message.
The Qur’an offers a precise religious explanation: it was revealed in Arabic so that its recipients would understand, as verse 12:2 states, and it presents itself as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a criterion over them in verse 5:48.”
Surah Yūsuf, “Joseph,” 12:2:
“Indeed, We have sent it down as a Qur’an in Arabic, so that you may understand.”
Surah Al-Māʾidah, “The Table Spread,” 5:48:
“We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and as its guardian. Judge between them, then, according to what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires, turning away from the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have assigned a law and a way. Had Allah willed, He would have made you a single community; but He wishes to test you through what He has given you. So compete in good deeds. To Allah you will all return, and He will inform you about that over which you disagreed.”
In the second verse, “guardian” translates muhaymin, also rendered as “guarantor” or “reference authority” over previous Scriptures.
It is also very important to consider the historical and political dimension. Under Constantine, in the fourth century, the Church gained the support of imperial power. The emperor intervened in religious disputes, convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 and taking measures against various groups considered heretical. Differences of faith thus also became a political issue: an entanglement that, in my view, remains a major problem today.
The relationship between religion, power, and the interpretation of Scripture raises questions that require historical and critical examination. This means that when a religious institution claims the authority to determine the truth about God, it is important to ask whether it allows people the freedom to question, interpret, and make informed choices about what to believe.
The second part calls for a distinction between the spiritual message and the institution’s use of it: what is taught or imposed in the name of religion may also reflect political, economic, or power interests.
Religious symbols, too, can be read in different ways. The crucifix, carried in processions as a Christian symbol of redemption and peace, also represents a violent death. Understanding this range of meanings makes it possible to discuss the symbol without assuming that its message is obvious or shared by everyone.
Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, “The Prophets,” 21:52: “What are these statues to which you are devoted?” (A rendering of the meaning.) Abraham thus questions his people about their devotion to images: a warning against idolatry, without any explicit reference to the crucifix. The Holy Qur’an
Dialogue between religions requires intellectual honesty and a willingness to examine the sources. This also applies to Islam, an understanding of which cannot depend exclusively on representations offered by politicians, institutions, and the media. Likewise, moving away from churches should not automatically be interpreted as spiritual indifference: it may accompany a search for answers that traditional institutions can no longer provide because knowledge is advancing.
This blog brings together numerous reflections on Islam, intended for those who wish to understand its message and explore its relevance in a society marked by neoliberal alienation. When a person’s worth is measured primarily through productivity, consumption, and competition, it becomes essential to question the meaning of existence, justice, and our responsibility towards one another.
Alongside these questions is the absence of a shared definition of God. Using the same word does not mean referring to the same conception of the divine. Clarifying these differences is a basic prerequisite: it allows us to understand how each religious perspective interprets the relationship between the Creator, human beings, and the world.
One point deserves to be reiterated: from the perspective presented here, the Qur’an calls for study, reflection, and discernment, warning against the uncritical acceptance of traditions and claims made without knowledge. This call also applies to customs prevalent in Muslim communities. Superstitions, manipulation, and practices passed down without an understanding of their foundations can distort the very concept of the divine message.
Religious inquiry therefore requires a distinction between revelation, interpretation, and tradition. It is through this work of understanding that faith can help counter alienation and restore human dignity, conscience, and responsibility to their rightful place.
The declaration of the shahāda opens with a negation: “There is no deity but God.” This is not a denial of God’s existence, but a refusal to attribute divinity to anything else. In this opening, I also read a personal invitation: before seeking God, we must question what we presume to know about Him, without taking inherited images and definitions for granted. Sincere inquiry requires the courage to question our own certainties and to distinguish what we know from what we have simply learned to repeat.
Bible, New Testament. Gospel according to John, 17:3, Giovanni Diodati’s Italian translation; Gospel according to Matthew, 6:5–15, particularly 6:6, and 26:36–39.
Qur’an. Surahs Al-Anʿām, 6; An-Nisāʾ, 4:157–158; Al-Māʾidah, 5:48; Yūsuf, 12:2; Al-Isrāʾ, 17:36; Al-Anbiyāʾ, 21:52. The Italian quotations are renderings of the meaning of the Arabic text.
Bucaille, Maurice (1976). La Bible, le Coran et la science : les Écritures saintes examinées à la lumière des connaissances modernes. Paris: Seghers.
Griffith, Sidney H. (2013). The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Amati, Sergio. Das Ei des Kolumbus. Ein Scherz Gottes.
Quran Talk Blog (7 October 2026). Does the Quran Know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac? Thirty Linguistic Signs.
Grokipedia. Aramaic loanwords in the Quran.
Comments