Agape is not often used by greeks right ?

I never said you *don't have* a reliable record. Stop misrepresenting me. I actually *asked citation* for it and you have not offered one.
And yes, agape is used in Greek writings, that's how NT scholars can tell their meaning. They study classical writings and compare and contrast from other sources.

And you have a biblical obligation to study a course in logic.

Alright guys stop attacking each other

Listen, I don't accept homework assignments from people I don't even know

So you won't even provide one citation of how the field of Textual Criticism is "corrupt" and "fallacious"?

Nor substantiate your claims?

I'm not obligated to do so when you have not patiently, charitably listen to all I have been telling you. If the simple Bible study of the Bible text's usage will not get through to you there's no point continuing further with you, you just demonstrate it's a waste of time.

We are talking bout love,don't hate each

I have listened, I simply showed you that your examples do not reliably prove what you intend.

We obviously will get nowhere as we seem to have radically different approaches to biblical exegesis and the epistemic baggage with it.

Other

Can y'all dumb it down for me. What's both of y'all position?

His position is that the two types of love phileos ad agape are grammatically synonymous and I dispute that and I think his attempts have been flawed and did not prove what he intended.

@Smash Boy No, you did not effectively prove what point you thought you had because you never grasped the point I was trying to get across, and were simply actively dismissing it and downplaying it, or slandering it as fallacious.

I never said grammatically synonymous

That shows you didn't listen

You prove what I just said.

Anyway, it's been real, it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun.

Ok each just state ur position so there is no misunderstanding

I have much better things to do

I literally said they have different meanings, grammatically and you actively dispute that. How is that not evidence that you think they are grammatically synonymous?

@DeButcher You can DM, I am getting off here for the day.

They are substantively synonymous---synonyms in meaning. The grammar is superfluous.

You're attacking the strawman of grammar

Don't state other person position just yours

"Substantively synonymous"
What does that even mean?

Wow, I have to explain a simple phrase. Synonymous in substance, i.e. meaning--thus, no focus on grammar.

I am going. Please don't ping me.

The entire point of grammatical synonymity is to show they *are synonymous in meaning*. You are splitting hairs.

Grammar is about noun, verb, adjective, adverb. I never focused on that.

Stop pinging me

Hermeneutics literally studies the grammar and meaning of words in context. "Substantively synonymous" being different from grammatically synonymous is literally meaningless.

I was trying to make it clear that you could see I was not saying grammatically synonymous

That is one aspect but that is not all there is to it.
And if you don't want to respond to me whenever I use the reply feature you have a free-will action available to your being called ignoring me.

Give it a rest SmashBoy.

I'm not ignoring you when I'm getting off of here for more important things to do!

I have a family and they are more important than you

So, give it a rest

That is irrelevant. When something is *synonymous*, it is inherently implied that there is a synonymity of grammatical nature. No matter how you spin it, phileos and agape are used in two different ways and senses. Just because they are love does not mean they must be synonymous.

PLEASE, in as nice a way as I can say, STOP

Then ignore me. Easy. You should stop replying to me everytime I reply to you if that's the case.