The Greek words, or . . .

. . . or: calling out blackbeetle.

I would like blackbeetle’s understanding (based on his prodigious knowledge of koine Greek, as well as other Greek “dialects” ) of the following words:

1. philia, eros and agape.

My understanding is that eros and agape are often simply synonymous, though there sometimes may be a fine distinction.

My wife, some years ago, asked a native Greek-speaker to translate philia. The young woman struggled a bit, then said: “It is very deep. It means something like, ‘When you lie down, I lie down’.” Which seems to make “friendship” a somewhat shallow translation, without further qualification. When asked to translate agape, she simply shook her head, and said that she couldn’t.

2. soterias.

Generally translated as “salvation”, my understanding is that it is not a juridical term (e.g., pardon from just punishment), but has the sense of healing or curing (i.e., that it would be more in line with medical, rather than juridical, understandings).

3. aphiemi and apoluo.

My understanding has been that both of these terms mean to let loose, to release, to let go or set free—but that apoluo is a somewhat more forceful term, in the sense of, say, throwing a javelin. I understand that, in some Greek writings, both terms have been used to refer to marital divorce.

Thanks in advance, old friend.

Originally posted by vistesd
. . . or: calling out blackbeetle.

I would like blackbeetle’s understanding (based on his prodigious knowledge of koine Greek, as well as other Greek “dialects” ) of the following words:

1. philia, eros and agape.

My understanding is that eros and agape are often simply synonymous, though there sometimes may be a fine distinction.
...[text shortened]... itings, both terms have been used to refer to marital divorce.

Thanks in advance, old friend.

while i am not black beetle from my understanding i don't think that eros and agape are similar, for agape is love based on principle, whereas eros is sexual love, philia refers to brotherly love like one would have for a family member.

"Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, Rom. 15:2, and works no ill to any, 13:8-10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith,' Gal. 6:10. See further 1 Cor. 13 and Col. 3:12-14." * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 105.]

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001710

Thus agape is love based upon principle

Originally posted by vistesd
. . . or: calling out blackbeetle.

I would like blackbeetle’s understanding (based on his prodigious knowledge of koine Greek, as well as other Greek “dialects” ) of the following words:
Love
1. philia, eros and agape.

My understanding is that eros and agape are often simply synonymous, though there sometimes may be a fine distincti ...[text shortened]... itings, both terms have been used to refer to marital divorce.

Thanks in advance, old friend.

Eros is like erotic love Philia from the same word as Philidelphia is a brotherly love and Agape is supposed to be like Gods Love

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
while i am not black beetle from my understanding i don't think that eros and agape are similar, for agape is love based on principle, whereas eros is sexual love, philia refers to brotherly love like one would have for a family member.

"Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feel ...[text shortened]...

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001710

Thus agape is love based upon principle

Part of my problem, Robbie, is that we moved several months ago from our cottage in the country to a small apartment in town (although a town nearly 300 miles away). Don’t get me wrong: it was, and remains, a good move—and our apartment is perfect for us. But—

In the process, I had to purge my bookshelves radically. 🙁 Even at the cottage, we had to have one floor jacked up because of the weight of the books!

So I am bereft of a lot of my former resource material (and nearly every day find myself looking for some book that is no longer in my possession: “I can’t believe I gave that one away!”.) I have generally followed the Greek Orthodox writers on these words, and hence I think that eros, for example, goes deeper than the “sexual”, while agape includes eros in some ways.

But I want to hear from blackbeetle, without further comment now (I think I have made some commentary on all of these words in the past).

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of my problem, Robbie, is that we moved several months ago from our cottage in the country to a small apartment in town (although a town nearly 300 miles away). Don’t get me wrong: it was, and remains, a good move—and our apartment is perfect for us. But—

In the process, I had to purge my bookshelves radically. 🙁 Even at the cottage, we had to ...[text shortened]... out further comment now (I think I have made some commentary on all of these words in the past).

Hmmm I am not really qualified to comment upon eros as its not mentioned in scripture as far as I am aware, although i do believe that when the Hebrew translators were translating the Septuagint they may have used agape in the Song of Solomon which certainly has erotic poetry in it, although I cannot say for sure, so yes there may be some merit to the idea 😀

Agape as you are aware is by far the most commonly used form and may be employed devoid of emotion, cerebrally, purely on principle.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hmmm I am not really qualified to comment upon eros as its not mentioned in scripture as far as I am aware, although i do believe that when the Hebrew translators were translating the Septuagint they may have used agape in the Song of Solomon which certainly has erotic poetry in it, although I cannot say for sure, so yes there may be some merit to th ...[text shortened]... most commonly used form and may be employed devoid of emotion, cerebrally, purely on principle.

My understanding about the Song of Songs is the same as yours--as a possibility.

You also know my view that poetry like that generally operates on more than one level, with multiple meanings (both intended and simply allowed by the author(s)).

Originally posted by vistesd
. . . or: calling out blackbeetle.

I would like blackbeetle’s understanding (based on his prodigious knowledge of koine Greek, as well as other Greek “dialects” ) of the following words:

1. philia, eros and agape.

My understanding is that eros and agape are often simply synonymous, though there sometimes may be a fine distinction.
...[text shortened]... itings, both terms have been used to refer to marital divorce.

Thanks in advance, old friend.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Thread 155320 (page 4)
"The Four Loves is a book by C. S. Lewis which explores the nature of love from a Christian and philosophical perspective through thought experiments. The book was based on a set of radio talks from 1958, criticised in the States at the time for their frankness about sex.

Contents: 1. Need/gift love; 2. Pleasures; 3. The Four Loves 3.1 Storge: affection; 3.2 Phileo: friendship; 3.3 Eros: romance; 3.4 Agape: unconditional love.

Need/gift love: Taking his start from St. John's words "God is Love", Lewis initially thought to contrast "Need-love" (such as the love of a child for its mother) and "Gift-love" (epitomized by God's love for humanity), to the disparagement of the former.[3] However he swiftly happened on the insight that the natures of even these basic categorizations of love are more complicated than they at first seemed: a child's need for parental comfort is a necessity, not a selfish indulgence, while conversely parental Gift-love in excessive form can be a perversion of its own.[4]

Pleasures: Lewis continued his examination by exploring the nature of pleasure, distinguishing Need-pleasures (such as water for the thirsty) from Pleasures of Appreciation, such as the love of nature.[5] From the latter, he developed what he called “a third element in love...Appreciative love”,[6] to go along with Need-love and Gift-love.

Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis would go on to counterpart that three-fold, qualitative distinction against the four broad types of loves indicated in his title.[7]

The Four Loves: In his remaining four chapters, Lewis treats of love under four categories (the highest does not stand without the lowest), based in part on the four Greek words for love: affection, friendship, eros, and charity. Lewis states that just as Lucifer—a former archangel—perverted himself by pride and fell into depravity, so too can love—commonly held to be the arch-emotion—become corrupt by presuming itself to be what it is not. A fictional treatment of these loves is the main theme of Lewis's novel Till We Have Faces.

Storge: affection: Affection is fondness through familiarity (a brotherly love), especially between family members or people who have otherwise found themselves together by chance. It is described as the most natural, emotive, and widely diffused of loves: natural in that it is present without coercion; emotive because it is the result of fondness due to familiarity; and most widely diffused because it pays the least attention to those characteristics deemed "valuable" or worthy of love and, as a result, is able to transcend most discriminating factors.

Affection, for Lewis, included both Need-love and Gift-love; he considered it responsible for 9/10th of all solid and lasting human happiness.[8] Ironically, however, affection's strength is also what makes it vulnerable. Affection has the appearance of being "built-in" or "ready made", says Lewis, and as a result people come to expect it irrespective of their behavior and its natural consequences.[9] Both in its Need and its Gift form, affection then is liable to 'go bad', and to be corrupted by such forces as jealousy, ambivalence and smothering.[10]

Phileo: friendship Phileo is the love between friends. Friendship is the strong bond existing between people who share common interest or activity.[11] Lewis immediately differentiates Friendship Love from the other Loves. He describes friendship as, "the least biological, organic, instinctive, gregarious and necessary...the least natural of loves"[12] - our species does not need friendship in order to reproduce - but to the classical and medieval worlds the more profound precisely because it is freely chosen.

Lewis explains that true friendships, like the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Bible, are almost a lost art. He expresses a strong distaste for the way modern society ignores friendship. He notes that he cannot remember any poem that celebrated true friendship like that between David and Jonathan, Orestes and Pylades, Roland and Oliver, Amis and Amiles. Lewis goes on to say, "to the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it".

Growing out of Companionship, friendship for Lewis was a deeply Appreciative love, though one which he felt few people in modern society could value at its worth, because so few actually experienced true friendship.[13]

Nevertheless Lewis was not blind to the dangers of friendships, such as its potential for cliqueyness, anti-authoritarianism, and pride.[14]

Eros: romance: Eros for Lewis was love in the sense of 'being in love' or 'loving' someone, as opposed to the raw sexuality of what he called Venus: the illustration Lewis uses was the distinction between 'wanting a woman' and wanting one particular woman - something that matched his (classical) view of man as a rational animal, a composite both of reasoning angel and instinctual alley-cat.[15] Eros turns the need-pleasure of Venus into the most appreciative of all pleasures;[16] but nevertheless Lewis warned against the modern tendency for Eros to become a god to people who fully submit themselves to it, a justification for selfishness, even a phallic religion.[17]

After exploring sexual activity and its spiritual significance in both a pagan and a Christian sense, he notes how Eros (or being in love) is in itself an indifferent, neutral force: how "Eros in all his splendour...may urge to evil as well as good".[18] While accepting that Eros can be an extremely profound experience, he does not overlook the dark way it may lead even to the point of suicide pacts or murder, as well as to furious refusals to part, "mercilessly chaining together two mutual tormentors, each raw all over with the poison of hate-in-love".[19]

Agape: unconditional love: Charity (agape) is the love that brings forth caring regardless of the circumstance. Lewis recognizes this as the greatest of loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue. The chapter on the subject focuses on the need of subordinating the natural loves - as Lewis puts it, "The natural loves are not self-sufficient"[20] - to the love of God, who is full of charitable love, to prevent what he termed their 'demonic' self-aggrandizement.[21]" (C.S. Lewis/wiki)

Originally posted by vistesd
. . . or: calling out blackbeetle.

I would like blackbeetle’s understanding (based on his prodigious knowledge of koine Greek, as well as other Greek “dialects” ) of the following words:

1. philia, eros and agape.

My understanding is that eros and agape are often simply synonymous, though there sometimes may be a fine distinction.
...[text shortened]... itings, both terms have been used to refer to marital divorce.

Thanks in advance, old friend.

Hey vistesd my friend, this old cow just noticed your post, hope all is OK with you and yours!

Here you are:

Agape – Storgi – Eros: a schema of escalation, where agape is in general a way to state a sentimental relationship with persons and/ or things. Storgi (affection) is agape without sexual desire, a situation in which there is coexistence of sympathy, solidarity and will for the protection (ie parental storgi). In this context, the evolution towards agape starts from a general attraction, which is then transformed into interest and furthermore into sympathy and/ or friendship. The escalation could be either the scheme agape – storgi – devotion, or pothos (desire) eros and pathos (passion). As regards the feelings, the evolution is undetermined and the escalation not a specific given.

Filia (philia) is defined as: 1. Friendship/ relation amongst friends and thus devotion – love – understanding between friends without lust. 2. Positive attitude in general. 3. A relationship grounded on a peaceful coexistence/ living.

Agape (from the v. agapo) is quite tricky: 1. Feeling grounded on friendship. 2. Affection between two persons along with a sentimental bond, as in the case mother – child. 3. One’s expression of the above mentioned feelings regardless of one’s motives (ie: His agape for her wasn’t real). 4. Love between two persons. 5. Love and/ or sexual relationship between two persons. 6. Altruism. 7. The highest property/ virtue of G-d (ie as at John 4:8). 8. Darling/ Dear (nf): an address for a specific person (Hey dear/ agape). 9. Love (nf) as at the previous case 8: Hey agape/ luv. 10. Agapes (plural): expression of storgi/ affection. 11. Strong volition (ie: I have great agape for racing). 12. Subject of a strong volition (Racing is my agape). 13. (theol.) The Second Anastasis. 14. Agapes (plural): the suppers of the early Christian communities.

Eros/ erotas: 1. Strong affection and desire between two persons, with strong desire/ pothos for sexual relation. 2. Object of erotic desire. 3. Relation between two persons that feel a mutual erotic desire for each other. 4. All kinds of erotic relations. 5. Making love/ Having sex. 6. Passion/ desire for something. 7. (theol.) Divine Eros: everlasting tendency of a believer to be in constant unison with Jesus.

v. Afiemai (n. afesis, see afesis amartion): I am released/ dispensed/ relieved/ saved/ spared from something. 2. (theol.) Forgiveness (afesis amartion), mainly in the context of a confession (as at Mark 1:4.
v. Apolymmi: Destroy, kill, loose.
Soterias: Is this genitive case? If it is, soteria means: Release from a specific danger or evil. 2. A solution to a specific problem. 3. (idiom. exress.) sanida soterias (from the French: planche de salut) (a wooden board that is used from a shipwrecked person): Something that helps somebody to be saved. 4. (theol.) Redemption of a person/ deliverance from ones sins.

😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of my problem, Robbie, is that we moved several months ago from our cottage in the country to a small apartment in town (although a town nearly 300 miles away). Don’t get me wrong: it was, and remains, a good move—and our apartment is perfect for us. But—

In the process, I had to purge my bookshelves radically. 🙁 Even at the cottage, we had to ...[text shortened]... out further comment now (I think I have made some commentary on all of these words in the past).

Oh, I 'm very glad you are well and in a new good house, and at the same time very sorry for this loss. During the last 17 years I lost almost all of my books and the feeling is still bitter bitter

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh, I 'm very glad you are well and in a new good house, and at the same time very sorry for this loss. During the last 17 years I lost almost all of my books and the feeling is still bitter bitter

Yes: bittter bitter.

I must go away from here again, old friend. be well.

Some uses of agape and how it differs from philia in the Christian Greek scriptures.

The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words agape, philia, and two words drawn from storge (eros, love between the sexes, not being used). Agape appears more frequently than the other terms.

Of the noun agape and the verb agapao, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

Regarding the verb phileo, Vine comments: “[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. . . . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord’s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.”—Vol. 3, pp. 21, 22.

James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phileo: “To be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [agapao] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety)

Agape, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That agape may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: “The Father loves [agapai] the Son.” At John 5:20, he said: “The Father has affection for [philei] the Son.” Certainly God’s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: “He that loves [agapon] me will be loved [agape thesetai] by my Father, and I will love [agapeo] him.” (Joh 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. Jehovah’s worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.—Joh 21:15-17.

So, although distinguished by respect for principle, agape is not unfeeling; otherwise it would not differ from cold justice. But it is not ruled by feeling or sentiment; it never ignores principle. Christians rightly show agape toward others for whom they may feel no affection or fondness, doing so for the welfare of those persons. (Ga 6:10) Yet, though not feeling affection, they do feel compassion and sincere concern for such fellow humans, to the limits and in the way that righteous principles allow and direct.

However, while agape refers to love governed by principle, there are good and bad principles. A wrong kind of agape could be expressed, guided by bad principles. For example, Jesus said: “If you love [agapate] those loving you, of what credit is it to you? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if you do good to those doing good to you, really of what credit is it to you? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if you lend without interest to those from whom you hope to receive, of what credit is it to you? Even sinners lend without interest to sinners that they may get back as much.” (Lu 6:32-34) The principle upon which such ones operate is: ‘Do good to me and I will do good to you.’

The apostle Paul said of one who had worked alongside him: “Demas has forsaken me because he loved [agapesas] the present system of things.” (2Ti 4:10) Demas apparently loved the world on the principle that love of it will bring material benefits. The apostle John says: “Men have loved [egapesan] the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.” (Joh 3:19, 20) Because it is a truth or principle that darkness helps cover their wicked deeds, they love it.

Jesus commanded: “Love [agapate] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [agapen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is God’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection.

Insight on the scriptures, Volume II, page 274

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Some uses of agape and how it differs from philia in the Christian Greek scriptures.

The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words agape, philia, and two words drawn from storge (eros, love between the sexes, not being used). Agape appears more frequently than the other terms.

Of the noun agape and the verb agapao, Vine’s Expo ...[text shortened]... ove is accompanied by any warmth or affection.

Insight on the scriptures, Volume II, page 274

Very well!

Furthermore, as regards the following:
Edit: "Jesus commanded: “Love [agapate] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [agapen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is God’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection."

Jesus' mysticism, hypermasculinity, deep faith, deep love, deep respect for all the human beings and self-sufficiency are clear at Mat 5:44, a passage indicating that the disciple has to love with his free will by force his enemies. "With his free will by force" is neither a scheme of speech nor a contradiction, but a subject of deep meditation. I hope our Christian friends comprehend😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Very well!

Furthermore, as regards the following:
Edit: "Jesus commanded: “Love [agapate] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [agapen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God throu ...[text shortened]... nor a contradiction, but a subject of deep meditation. I hope our Christian friends comprehend😵

Hmmm, the Christian is under compulsion to love his enemies and I suspect that he freely places himself in such a position through his own volition, knowing that it is the principled thing to do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hmmm, the Christian is under compulsion to love his enemies and I suspect that he freely places himself in such a position through his own volition, knowing that it is the principled thing to do.

Yes😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Very well!

Furthermore, as regards the following:
Edit: "Jesus commanded: “Love [agapate] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [agapen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God throu ...[text shortened]... nor a contradiction, but a subject of deep meditation. I hope our Christian friends comprehend😵

Now if we all could just strike our enemies blind for a while until they come to their senses, then we could love the heck out of them.