Diversities of Tongues
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 11. 2020
- Embassy Church Orlando
Dr. Roberts Liardon teaches at The Wars of the Lord Conference
The Lord Is A Man of War - Part Two
Make sure to follow Roberts Liardon:
Order God’s Generals Books Today:
www.RobertsLiardon.org
Subscribe to the latest sermons: / @robertsliardon
To support this ministry and help us continue to reach people all around the world click here: www.robertsliardon.org/giving...
TEXT “GIVE” TO (407) 720-4593
Stay Connected
Website: www.robertsliardon.org
Roberts Liardon Facebook: / robertsliardon
Roberts Liardon Instagram: / robertsliardon_official
Robers Liardon Twitter: / robertsliardon
#RobertsLiardon
"Lord, You're invisible; I'm not." So funny. Been there.
Bless you Robert
@29:34 that message was for me sir.. i been asking those exact things and the Lord spoke through you.. Thank you Father for your incredible ways of speaking to your children🤲i now know what i must do. 🫡
Powerful funny and beautiful preaching! I enjoyed it very much!
Thank you, finally someone who understands!
Glory to your name Jesus! 🙏🔥📜🗡🛡👑❤👰
I love to hear these stories!
I continue to appreciate your teaching ... and hilarious humor. (...thank you for the single 'amen' from the guy back there who looks like Santa Claus...) *LOL*
THANK YOU FOR PREACHING WITH AN EYE ON THE THIRD HEAVEN THINGS IN THE MIDST OF AND IN SPITE OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF: THE POST MODERN CULTURE, DEAD RELIGION, CHURCHIANITY, AND PRACTICAL-LOGISTICAL-EVERY DAY LIFE ! ! ! ! ! . . .P.S.: HOLY PROVERBS CHAPTER 18: V.21,V.22 AUTHORIZED OLD KING JAMES TRANSLATION
Roto rooter anointings are extremely beneficial Right Now!
Don't go changing to try to please me, beloved Roberts..... my darling Roberts....
Got a new prayer language today!!!! Have had many since back in the day but Woooo! Remember I told you I had a dream that you gave me a Signet Ring! My goodness Pastor...Lance exploded! Go please to his teaching on that...I have been Very Busy with KINGDOM WORK! You would be proud of me (President Trump is getting a BIG Blessing! in JESUS name) 1 Samuel 30:18...the angels have been alerted and dispatched!
You look so good, Roberts dearest...😄❤️❤️❤️ You always do...😃😘😘😘👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! 😃❤️❤️❤️
Thank you
there is no lost time in God
Thank you!!! I'm over hear like why my tounges different? Thank you!!!
The Blood of Jesus I love you all, yes this is Mana ❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️
you are awesome, Roberts. I sure wish you'd come back to Alaska.
I love you just the way you are 😘❤️❤️❤️😃😘😘😘
💟💟💟💟💟💟💟💟💟
hook up with right people not structures but living organism fellowship koinania
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language.
In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.
Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.
“Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs - this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful and for many people, the experience is profound. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
@@keith3362
He doesn't. The word "unknown" began to appear in the late 1500's and became a more or less "permanent fixture" to the passage with the KJV in the early 1600's. Many people don't know this, but its inclusion in the Bible was done specifically as anti Catholic rhetoric, but that's a story for another day. Suffice to say that in the original text it was just the word "language" (Greek "glôssa"), no "unknown".
“Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that.
In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred language of the Jewish faith, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that 1. all N.T. references to speaking in tongues refer to the speaker speaking in a real language that they already know. 2. All speaking on tongues practiced by Pentecostals etc are NCNLUs.
So 1 Cor 13:8 means some day we will stop speaking in foreign languages, or perhaps our native languages. Really?
1 Cor 14:14 is praying but not with your understanding. How come they don't understand a language they know?
In 1 Cor 14:18-19 Paul thanks God that he prays in foreign languages more than all the Corinthians. Why pray in a foreign language, when you can pray in your native language? (I'm assuming that contrary to your last paragraph you don't actually consider speaking in your native language is speaking in tongues, otherwise everybody is doing it all the time)
In Acts 10:44-46, was speaking in another learned language a hallmark of being baptised in the Spirit? Compare Acts 11:15-17 with Acts 1:4-5.
In Acts 2:4 why is it necessary to be speaking in a non-native language for the Spirit to give utterance?
@@ChrisHall-rd1wy
Let me try and address your questions/points -
On 1 and 2 above, correct - they are languages known to the speaker, but not the audience.
Consider the locations - Corinth and Ephesus. Both of these (more so Corinth) were multi-cultural, multi-lingual port cities. Corinth was on two seaports and Ephesus boasted one of the seven wonders of the ancient world: The Temple of Artemis. Today we’d call it a ‘major tourist attraction’. Caesarea was also a port city.
And yes, modern tongues-speech is NC-NLU. Thousands of examples have been studies and recorded, not one was ever found to be a real language, living or dead.
1 Cor 13:8 - No, you need to take the verse in context with the rest of the chapter. It is a metaphor of sorts describing the imperfect (language knowledge, etc.). In a nutshell, when the perfect comes, these things will no longer be needed. When man comes to live with God in person, there will be no need for these things.
1 Cor. 14:14 -
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
You have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” - which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense, and in a passive sense.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( *to me* ), or my understanding produces no fruit *in/for me* . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my previous posts).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an *active* understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful *for others* , or my understanding produces no fruit *for/in others* .
In other words, the fact *I* understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Coffman, Gill, Vincent, Wesley, Abbott, Calvin, Coke, Meyer, Edwards, Schaff, et al.)
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding *brings no one fruit* ”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so _all_ may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language.
It seems it is predominantly Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues (as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s) that subscribe to the passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit the modern concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the _audience_ who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
1 Cor. 14:18 - this does not refer to praying; but rather spreading the Gospel in general v.19 specifically teaching (not praying) in a church setting.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles - it stands to reason that he would use his knowledge of languages more than the average person. It was essentially part of his ‘job description’. He’s not advocating for modern tongues-speech here.
In a church setting however, he would rather speak/teach in a language he’s intimately familiar with (his native language) rather than trying to express the nuances and convey his exact intention and meaning in a language he may speak well, but is not 100% fluent in.
It’s one thing to speak another language but another thing altogether to interpret/translate.
If my native language is English and I learn German enough to be able to speak it to get by, it does not necessarily mean I can adequately translate; I may be able to get across the gist of what I’m trying to say, but to express the nuances, particularly with things like prayer, religious teaching, is actually quite a difficult task.
Paul makes it clear he’d prefer to do this in a language he knows completely rather than one he doesn’t.
Acts 10 - Peter & Cornelius.
No - Cornelius was there with his ‘household’ - ”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but a retinue of fellow soldiers and slaves as well.
His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves.
In short, though his fellow soldiers spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves almost certainly not.
Upon hearing Peter’s message, reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire - any number of languages are possible here.
When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will _always_ revert to their native language. That’s just a known fact. These people here were in the same situation and some reverted to languages Peter and his company did not speak. Some was likely Latin as Peter and his company did recognize that they were praising God. Hence, as far as Peter and his company were concerned, they began “speaking in tongues (read “languages”)”.
Acts 2:4 - the passage is usually translated as “as the Spirit gave them utterance”; however, that’s not quite correct. If we look at the Greek, the word usually translated as “to give utterance” is ‘apophtheggomai’ - the word means “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to”. It refers *not* to the content of the speech (i.e. the language), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
The Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ of the utterance in Acts , it gave the _manner_ in which it was uttered.
For a more in-depth discussion on the gift of languages, see: czcams.com/video/z7AmdF6Ba_Y/video.html
Pastors shouldn't lead a church. The Apostles and Prophets do .There the ones who lay the foundation. Apostles 1st Prophets 2nd .that's the way Jesus organized the church