Except it is about those differences. Grammatical meaning matters. You are implying that they are not to have Agape love, I just showed you that they have to as their foundation.

Apparently you are too educated on a dead language to see the simple logic. Look at Titus 2:4. It is the only place where wives are given direction as to what to do in response to husbands in this issue, and it is a phileo variant, not agape.

It does not say to *only* have that kind of love. It says that they are to have it.

You are implying and interpreting this as if I have a false dichotomy between a family should either have agape or phileos, that is a strawman.

It's not strawman when you insist there are stark differences in phileo and agape as though they are on different levels to different things. I'm only going and applying what you said to places that they are used to show you the absurdity of it.

Declaring it as strawman is dismissive and doesn't approach the substance of the argument that is somehow making you uncomfortable.

They have different meanings in their Greek roots alone. Just because you can show that an author advices to employ both senses does not mean they are grammatically synonymous. That's the assumed synonym fallacy and it's a common exegetical error.

The Bible shows they are substantively synonymous. Please quit looking at a periphery argument about grammatical differences. You just are not seeing the simplicity of this argument.

Do you speak more than just English? Have you studied more than just Greek scholarship Greek on a separate language than English?

Your argument revolves around that by pointing out two Greek words that are used in two different senses, must therefore mean there will be a theological issue. You fail to justify how I am making a false dichotomy for simply pointing out these differences. This convo started because I pointed out these differences and you went to argue how that creates a theological absurdity and so far you haven't shown how save Paul and Titus adviced the community to exercise both types of love. Big deal, that's not my argument.

It's a false dichotomy because there can't be differences between the two words agape and phileo or there will be problems. Your focus on the terms is only book knowledge, not Bible knowledge.

Well no but I have read from actual scholars and they don't even show they are the same since they recognize they are not the same sense nor do they see a problem being different.

Agape and phileo are not two types of love mutually distinct from each other. They are one and the same. I don't care what your brainy scholars say, the Bible usage trumps them.

Only because you have not read the Bible enough with understanding and an aim to apply what it says do you have a problem with this argument. You hold some man's opinion higher than the word of God itself.

That is terrible non sequitur. Words have meanings and we know for a fact that there are differences between these words and the authors encouraged to exercise both. Big deal. You think it's synonymous solely because Paul and Titus encourage both. That is literally non sequitur and an exegetical fallacy of assumed synonym.

Go ahead, be dismissive still, and try to think yourself justified by calling it an exegetical fallacy when any objective Bible student approaching the two passages will see the point.

The Bible was revealed in Hebrew and Koiné Greek, not English nor Chinese, so I don't see why you quip that I went to the original language and showed there are differences.

I'm saying and demonstrating that your understanding of Greek on these two words is corrupt by the opinion of men. The usage alone in Greek in similar instances shows they are synonymous.

But they don't, that's the issue. They aren't synonymous. And complaining that I went to the original language and how those two words were used by Greek at the time is irrelevant.

Being Sola Scriptura does not mean we cannot use external sources to study and know the social context of the Bible.

Okay, last example since you aren'y paying attention. Go to John 3:35.

"The Father loveth the Son"

There it is agape.

Now, turn to John 5:20.

"For the Father loveth the Son" -- there it is phileo

Well yes, The Father has phileal relationship with the Son, and?

Same statement both places--if there is any difference in the two, if phileo is not as grand as agape, did God's love for His Son degrade between two chapters?

You haven't proved synonymity, all you are showing is The Father loves the Son in two different senses. That is not problematic.

The passages are not even attempting to demonstrate like there is different love of God the Father for His Son.

I reject your false premise that I meant to imply phileos is a degradation. That is a strawman.

Okay, but yet you puff up agape like it's the only thing we should have when God clearly uses phileo in many instances

You're just inconsistent and maybe you haven't thought through things all that well

If you read it in the original Greek, you can tell that The Father loves the Son in two different ways. That is not a big deal. You making it out to be a problem is silly.

But the context is not teaching as that He loves Him in different ways. That's only a sense you think you find because you think you know there's a difference between the words.

You have too much book smarts for your own good

No, I am not. I recognize The Father Loves God phileally as well as Agape sense. Those don't prove they are synonyms.

The Bible is a book as well, so yeah.

A compilation of books.

A book of books.

You know I made a distinction before so no need to be snarky

And you imply as if being "book smart" is inherently bad in this conversation.