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?

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.