@Milkgamer55 when two of smartest kid in class have different answers. 😂

That is false, but show me where exactly are they synonyms and furthermore, how exactly do they present theological problems if they are different?

@DeButcher That’s when showdown time happens

Prov. 18:13, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Like I said, don't get ahead of yourself.

I just asked you afterwards to show me.

I'm not getting ahead of myself.

Patience!

~~I am no padawan~~

Look at John 3:16 first--when God says that He loves us, it's agape, how you would think. But, then go check out John 16:27 and tell me what's there.

If it is as you say, the agape is better, higher, different than phileo, and phileo is some family or friend love, what's up with that?

John 16:27, if what you say about phileo is true, God's love for us somehow degraded from John 3:16 to John 16:27?

Now, you said we are supposed to agape love our neighbor in Mt. 19:19, but what about 1 Cor. 16:22 that we are only supposed to phileo love Jesus?

So the premise here is that you think phileos is a degraded form of love. I think you need to justify this in light of scripture as I never implied they are degraded forms.

A wife is only supposed to phileo love her husband in Titus 2:4, but a husband only to agape love his wife Eph. 4:28?

The way you put it, yes

So it's a false premise

And the classic misconception and false teaching about agape v. phileo

No, you misinterpreted my statement.

I don’t even understand what you guys are talking about

Something about the Greek words for love

No, I caught your statement right, but I was trying to help you wean off of a bunch of Greek scholarship nonsense to show that the Bible itself uses the words interchangeably.

Dude, there are inherent grammatical differences. You have not proved at all that they are grammatically the same. That's dishonest. The best you did was that they are both integral to our relationship as Christians and God. I never denied this. I said that between phileos and agape, Agape is the most important and the most foundational. The latter is key.

You're running in circles, and, if you're a Christian, you're accusing a fellow brother publicly of dishonesty.

"Greek scholarship nonsense"
Bruh, all I did was show you the original Koiné greek rendition. Wtf.

What I'm saying is you are wrong to lift agape up higher than phileo when God never did that.

Why cuss? That's inappropriate for a Christian.

I am Christian and I am Pro Life!

Dude, I am aware that brotherly love is important in the Christian community. I am not denying this. I am aware of the familial dynamics that are essential that the Christian community and God instills in the Church. This isn't the point. My point is that between Agape and Phileos, Agape is *foundational*, and phileos is a consequence of that love.

We are to have phileos among Christians since we consider ourselves brother and sisters in Christ, but Agape is at the foundation and yes, they are grammatically different. This is common knowledge among NT Scholars and those who know well on Greek.

No, not how the Bible puts it or there will be problems, as I said. So, you conclude that the wife's love for her husband is consequent (phileo) on the husband loving her (agape)? That's teaching something the Bible doesn't teach.

There will be family problems if that's what you're advocating.

Imagine wives holding things from the husband deliberately saying they don't feel agape loved by him yet so they don't have to do a thing.

Yes it does. God's love at the Cross was sacrificial for *all*, including His enemies. That kind of love is what a husband ought to have towards his wife.

I am not saying he can't have phileos, dude. I am saying Agape should be at the foundation first and foremost.

But, she is not to have that at all toward her husband since you say these things are inherent with agape v. phileo.

Consequence: family problems!

The mere fact of pointing out a grammatical difference between two words and implying a theological paradox is a huge non sequitur.

It's not about a grammatical difference. They are two different words in Greek at the root of whatever conjugation that they are used in. To say it's only about a grammatical difference belies you didn't properly understand the argument nor text.

I am saying your arbitrary definitions to these Greek terms is not consistent to Bible usage.

"Οἱ ἄνδρες, *ἀγαπᾶτε* τὰς [a]γυναῖκας, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς," Ephesians 5:25 in Greek, look at the greek term there. Oops, it's an agape variant. So yes, Husbands ought to have Agape love towards their wives.

Right, like I said. But, Titus 2:4, wives are only to have phileo love to their husbands?