Agape Love vs Philia Love (Jesus Christ, tradition, translation, Holy Spirit)

[Falvlun]

In researching for a different post, I stumbled upon an interesting contradition.
Christians have adopted "agape love" as the epitome of how a Christian should love.
According to a Christian site:
Agape

A special word representing the divine love of God toward His Son, human beings in general and believers. It is also used to depict the outwardly focused love God expects believers to have for one another.

and

This kind of love is perhaps best expressed in Jesus Christ's statement in John 15:13, "Greater love [agape] has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends." Jesus Himself perfectly exemplified this kind of love throughout His lifetime, continually giving of Himself and His time and energies to serve others and ultimately offering up His life as a sacrifice for all of humanity. This is the kind of love God wants each of us to exemplify in our lives and particularly in our marriages.

Philia love, on the other hand:

means "'to have ardent affection and feeling'—a type of impulsive love" (Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, "Love"). This is the natural, human type of love and affection that we have for a friend and is often defined as "brotherly love."
In John 21:15-16, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him with the agapao type of love and Peter responded that he had the normal human phileo type of love for Him. Later, after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter would be able to genuinely demonstrate agapao-type godly love, serving others throughout his lifetime and making the ultimate sacrifice in martyrdom.

source: The Different Kinds of Love Mentioned in the Bible > Marriage and Family: The Missing Dimension

But if we go to good ole Wikipedia, we get a sort of opposite rendition:

Agape:

means "love" in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means"I love you". In Ancient Greek it often refers to a general affection rather than the attraction suggested by "eros"; agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.

Philia:

which means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philia denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

Is it just me, or did the Christians flip the meanings of the words? Philia seems to me to be the more virtuous sort of love. Futhermore, the selflessness that is supposed to characterize agape love is completely missing from its actual Greek definition. In fact, agape love seems to be rather similiar to the common English definition of "love", though Christians seem to go through great pains to draw disimilarities between them. What gives?

[Sunstone]

When it comes to the ancient Greek words for love, everything depends on which scholar or source you look at. (Even the transliteration of the words varies from one source to another, especially in the case of "philia" -- philia, phileo, philos, etc.) Ever since I became interested in the subject 35 years ago, I've read so many differing accounts of what the ancient Greeks meant by eros, philia, agape, and one or two other words they sometimes used for "love", that my head is permanently dizzy now.

Nevertheless, I do think you are in agreement with several scholars in saying that Christians altered the meanings of the words to suite their own purposes. That, however, is a common and continuous practice the world over. Simply look at how the word "force" was given an additional new meaning by the Star Wars series.

[angellous_evangellous]

Agape and Phileo are the same thing.

End of story.

[astarath]

agape and philio do differ however this is one of those fun translational miscues in which a concept probably outlined in hebrew or aramaic is poorly translated into a foreign tongue and the meaning immediately contradicts the message offered.

[Falvlun]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Nevertheless, I do think you are in agreement with several scholars in saying that Christians altered the meanings of the words to suite their own purposes. That, however, is a common and continuous practice the world over. Simply look at how the word "force" was given an additional new meaning by the Star Wars series.

Good point, and it does make sense for a group to create specific labels to better convey what they mean. It just seems to me that if Paul wrote "agape" then he meant "agape", and not some new definition that no one ever heard of before; to say otherwise is to retroactively change the meaning of his words. Unless, of course, Paul was actively re-writing the definition himself...

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Agape and Phileo are the same thing.

End of story.

The more I read the two Wiki definitions, the more this makes sense. Both refer to a general love towards family, friends, and things.

The only difference is that philia also had a "virtuous" connotation imparted by Aristotle, and means friendship in modern Greek, whereas agape means love.

I wonder what a Greek-speaking person makes of the Christian definition of agape.

Originally Posted by astarath

agape and philio do differ however this is one of those fun translational miscues in which a concept probably outlined in hebrew or aramaic is poorly translated into a foreign tongue and the meaning immediately contradicts the message offered.

Greek was the original language of these letters, so translation shouldn't have been a problem.

[astarath]

correct was the original written language unfortunately these letters were not the originals immediately placed into a book and scripted from one to another. Rather they were dictated most likely in Aramaic or Hebrew and transcribed in greek.

[Charity]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

When it comes to the ancient Greek words for love, everything depends on which scholar or source you look at. (Even the transliteration of the words varies from one source to another, especially in the case of "philia" -- philia, phileo, philos, etc.) Ever since I became interested in the subject 35 years ago, I've read so many differing accounts of what the ancient Greeks meant by eros, philia, agape, and one or two other words they sometimes used for "love", that my head is permanently dizzy now.

Nevertheless, I do think you are in agreement with several scholars in saying that Christians altered the meanings of the words to suite their own purposes. That, however, is a common and continuous practice the world over. Simply look at how the word "force" was given an additional new meaning by the Star Wars series.

Well as Christians we believe that "The Force is with us".......
And it's because of "Agape" Love
Phil, sweetie your head isn't dizzy from many differing accounts of words but from the many beers that you are consuming..........You should clear your head with a shot of Tequila ever so often.....

[tomspug]

I see love, rather than being a series of categories, as being a scale that leads into infinity. This is why I agree with AE that there isn't much distinction between agape and phileos (a philosophical conception, which is suspect immediately). Eros, on the other hand, is not love. With sexual love, there is an intermingling of desire and service, which clearly is more complicated or, at the very least, different from appreciation and devotion.

The clear distinction, in my mind, is that there is love through words and love through action. What better way to demonstrate love than to sacrifice yourself for another person? In my mind, there is none, which is why Jesus points to it so fervently.

[Falvlun]

Originally Posted by astarath

correct was the original written language unfortunately these letters were not the originals immediately placed into a book and scripted from one to another. Rather they were dictated most likely in Aramaic or Hebrew and transcribed in greek.

So you are saying that it was correctly written in Greek, then translated to Aramaic, and then mis-translated back into Greek? Forgive me for being skeptical. This wasn't a one-time "error" as the agape vs phileo concept is found a few times throughout the New Testament. Also, I'm sure biblical and historical scholars would have been all over this by now if that were the case. Many people were speaking Greek back then, too, and the error should have been caught.

We are not talking about some obscure verse in Nahum. This is a major Christian concept. Is it really probable that it was simply some scribe's error?

(By the way, what exactly is the error you have in mind? Are you thinking that philia and agape got swapped somehow?)

Originally Posted by tomspug

I see love, rather than being a series of categories, as being a scale that leads into infinity.

I'm not sure I see a distinction between a series of categories and a scale...

For what it's worth, I see the different sorts of love more like a network, all interconnected, all having their part, all necessary.

Originally Posted by tomspug

This is why I agree with AE that there isn't much distinction between agape and phileos (a philosophical conception, which is suspect immediately). Eros, on the other hand, is not love. With sexual love, there is an intermingling of desire and service, which clearly is more complicated or, at the very least, different from appreciation and devotion.

Certainly there is a similarity between all the loves; otherwise, they wouldn't have all been characterized as a type of love (and yes, this would have to include eros love, too).

I'm surprised that you agree with AE though, since you seemed to go through great pains in the "Love Requires Imagination" thread to show why they are completely different things.

Originally Posted by tomspug

The clear distinction, in my mind, is that there is love through words and love through action. What better way to demonstrate love than to sacrifice yourself for another person? In my mind, there is none, which is why Jesus points to it so fervently.

Don't you need a another qualifier to make your distinction meaningful? "Love through words and love through self-less action." Do you really think a mother's love for her child stops at words? Of course not. Yet, again referring to the Imagination thread, according to you a mother's love is not agape love.

Besides, words did seem important to Jesus: He wanted the agape form, and Peter kept saying the phileo form.

I wonder now if Peter's reticence had something to do with the fact that the agape form more typically referred to a spousal love, and it was strange to use it towards Jesus.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Falvlun

Besides, words did seem important to Jesus: He wanted the agape form, and Peter kept saying the phileo form.

I wonder now if Peter's reticence had something to do with the fact that the agape form more typically referred to a spousal love, and it was strange to use it towards Jesus.

Some scholars dismiss that passage as most likely a fabricated conversation that never happened.