Study Words!!!

[Greektim]

How does a Christian Hedonist define love? Use several examples.

I have difficulty understanding how brotherly fondness is the same as Divine love for creation.

There are many levels of love: fatherly, motherly, brotherly, sisterly, friendly, husbandly, wifely.

The shade of difference is: willing to die for, which is kind of agape, fulfilled in The Lord Jesus.

Not sure where this is going.

We are in a Narcissistic world of ego maniacs. The love of one's self does not fit any of the above.


Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Even though there are various relationships in which we use the term "love", that is beside the point. There are synonymous words for love in Greek that may have nuances in certain contexts, but not typically. That John in his same gospel account uses them interchangeably in the same context in multiple places is your deal breaker. Read that link I provided by a trusted NT scholar. It is short and simple. It will shed a great deal of light as to what I am saying.

Xian Hedonism: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. I pursue pleasure b/c knowing God is the highest pleasure there is.

 

[Bro. James]

Christianity and Hedonism--seems almost oxymoronic.

What the world needs now is love, sweet love...not really.

God gave us agape love--we crucified Him.

According to my Online Etymology Dictionary: Ancient Greeks distinguished four ways of love: erao, phileo, agapao, and stergo.
The definitions certainly seem to be more than nuances. These words are not synonymous. This shows up in the Koine Greek--also used by the Roman Legions.

In the 21st of John, Jesus is showing Peter that he must feed His sheep to demonstrate agape love. Peter was at the phileo level. Jesus asked Peter in the same context: "Do you love me more than these--fish?

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Greektim]

Christianity and Hedonism--seems almost oxymoronic.

What the world needs now is love, sweet love...not really.

God gave us agape love--we crucified Him.

According to my Online Etymology Dictionary: Ancient Greeks distinguished four ways of love: erao, phileo, agapao, and stergo.
The definitions certainly seem to be more than nuances. These words are not synonymous. This shows up in the Koine Greek--also used by the Roman Legions.

In the 21st of John, Jesus is showing Peter that he must feed His sheep to demonstrate agape love. Peter was at the phileo level. Jesus asked Peter in the same context: "Do you love me more than these--fish?

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

In other words, you are either too lazy or too scared to check the link I provided?

And your faith and exegesis relies on the Online Etymology Dictionary...

And you think word studies consist of etymological studies? You are making my point. In ancient Greek, those words probably had 4 nuances of meaning. But by the time of Jesus and Koine Greek, as all languages tend to simplification, the nuances dropped off.

Just compare how John used phileo and agapao in his gospel account. Interchangeable, dude. Listen and learn instead of talking. It might do you some good.

And as for Xian Hedonism, here is a question: Do you serve God our of duty or delight? I do it b/c it brings me pleasure. "Delight yourself in the Lord."

 

[Yeshua1]

In other words, you are either too lazy or too scared to check the link I provided?

And your faith and exegesis relies on the Online Etymology Dictionary...

And you think word studies consist of etymological studies? You are making my point. In ancient Greek, those words probably had 4 nuances of meaning. But by the time of Jesus and Koine Greek, as all languages tend to simplification, the nuances dropped off.

Just compare how John used phileo and agapao in his gospel account. Interchangeable, dude. Listen and learn instead of talking. It might do you some good.

And as for Xian Hedonism, here is a question: Do you serve God our of duty or delight? I do it b/c it brings me pleasure. "Delight yourself in the Lord."

That passage where Jesus and peter interact regarding "do you love me?". would be THE case to make out what word study fallacies are all about!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have found over last 20 years of preaching and teaching that most misunderstanding of scripture here in America were not caused by a lack of a proper understanding of Greek, but it most often stems from the fact that people really do not understand their own language of English.

And I'm referring to us preachers, not the poor folks sitting in the pew trying to sort it all out.

So true, as before can learn Greek/Hebrew, need to relearn and apply proper English!

And you are correct. in that most Christians get tricked up by msiapplying/not using proper biblical study techniques, and not by the Greek text!

 

[Greektim]

That passage where Jesus and peter interact regarding "do you love me?". would be THE case to make out what word study fallacies are all about!

Yep... that "Sloppy Agape" article I linked bears that out quite plainly. Go here.

 

[Bro. James]

In other words, you are either too lazy or too scared to check the link I provided?

And your faith and exegesis relies on the Online Etymology Dictionary...

And you think word studies consist of etymological studies? You are making my point. In ancient Greek, those words probably had 4 nuances of meaning. But by the time of Jesus and Koine Greek, as all languages tend to simplification, the nuances dropped off.

Just compare how John used phileo and agapao in his gospel account. Interchangeable, dude. Listen and learn instead of talking. It might do you some good.

And as for Xian Hedonism, here is a question: Do you serve God our of duty or delight? I do it b/c it brings me pleasure. "Delight yourself in the Lord."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lazy; certainly not scared; skeptical perhaps. What is the criteria for becoming a trusted bible scholar?

I am just trying to find out why Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him. Maybe because Peter denied Jesus three times.

Etymologies, analytical Greek and English lexicons, and concordances are all I use. Commentaries are not reliable--kind of like "Holy" Fathers. I use the Geneva Bible and the KJV-1611 as amended, appended, edited and revised. God wrote only one Bible and He did not stutter.

Methinks we have a serious abberration in our understanding of Hedonism in a Christian context. Mr. Piper has a large following; so does Benny Hinn. We seem to have a different set of paradigms.

God is not the author of confusion.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

Not everyone agrees that phileo and agapao are exact synonyms. I have Greek prof friends that disagree with the esteemed Dr. Black as I do. Alas, my son, who got his PhD under Dr. Black, disagrees with me.

My main point would be that there is no such thing in semantics as exact synonyms. Words similar in meaning always have a nuance to them. For example, consider the English words nation and country. These two words have different ranges of meaning, though they are very close. For example, you wouldn't have a "picnic in the nation" but you would have a "picnic in the country."

 

[Greektim]

Not everyone agrees that phileo and agapao are exact synonyms. I have Greek prof friends that disagree with the esteemed Dr. Black as I do. Alas, my son, who got his PhD under Dr. Black, disagrees with me.

My main point would be that there is no such thing in semantics as exact synonyms. Words similar in meaning always have a nuance to them. For example, consider the English words nation and country. These two words have different ranges of meaning, though they are very close. For example, you wouldn't have a "picnic in the nation" but you would have a "picnic in the country."

In your example, the context determines. I think the same would apply to John 21 as well as how the words are used through the rest of John. And it seems most likely that they are used synonymously. The emphasis is on the 3 questions to link w/ the 3 denials.

 

[Greektim]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lazy; certainly not scared; skeptical perhaps. What is the criteria for becoming a trusted bible scholar?

I am just trying to find out why Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him. Maybe because Peter denied Jesus three times.

Etymologies, analytical Greek and English lexicons, and concordances are all I use. Commentaries are not reliable--kind of like "Holy" Fathers. I use the Geneva Bible and the KJV-1611 as amended, appended, edited and revised. God wrote only one Bible and He did not stutter.

Methinks we have a serious abberration in our understanding of Hedonism in a Christian context. Mr. Piper has a large following; so does Benny Hinn. We seem to have a different set of paradigms.

God is not the author of confusion.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Years of godly, quality research.

Yes... the 3 denials correspond to the 3 questions. That is why it was on the 3rd question that Peter got upset, as the text makes clear.

And if you refuse to use commentaries but rely solely on lexicons and etymologies, then there is a bigger issue at work. I'm even curious why you bother with etymology. What a word once meant can end up steering you into an incorrect assessment. Diachronic linguistics is not all that helpful for exegesis, imo.

This is a lost cause. You clearly are not wanting to learn from anyone outside of your small trust circle. Just remember, God gave the church teachers in all forms, including writers such as commentators.

 

[Yeshua1]

In your example, the context determines. I think the same would apply to John 21 as well as how the words are used through the rest of John. And it seems most likely that they are used synonymously. The emphasis is on the 3 questions to link w/ the 3 denials.

Based upikn how John used the terms in his Gospel, would seem to best fit the idea that he saw them all as meaning the same thing!

 

[Yeshua1]

Years of godly, quality research.

Yes... the 3 denials correspond to the 3 questions. That is why it was on the 3rd question that Peter got upset, as the text makes clear.

And if you refuse to use commentaries but rely solely on lexicons and etymologies, then there is a bigger issue at work. I'm even curious why you bother with etymology. What a word once meant can end up steering you into an incorrect assessment. Diachronic linguistics is not all that helpful for exegesis, imo.

This is a lost cause. You clearly are not wanting to learn from anyone outside of your small trust circle. Just remember, God gave the church teachers in all forms, including writers such as commentators.

maybe this has changed, but while i was in School, was taught to go first into studying the English passage directly, using valid pinciples of understanding the bible, and after doing all of that, look at a good commentary on the passage, and only after doing all of that, get into word studies, checking lexicons and grammars etc..

get a good overall view and thoughts of the passage, then use advanced tools to glean their insights...

 

[Greektim]

Based upikn how John used the terms in his Gospel, would seem to best fit the idea that he saw them all as meaning the same thing!

Or at least synonymous. In other words, their meanings have a lot of overlap and not much should be read between them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Or at least synonymous. In other words, their meanings have a lot of overlap and not much should be read between them.

That would be a better way to view this, as he intended the words to be speaking broadly in both case to how God loves, and how we should because he does...

 

[John of Japan]

In your example, the context determines. I think the same would apply to John 21 as well as how the words are used through the rest of John. And it seems most likely that they are used synonymously. The emphasis is on the 3 questions to link w/ the 3 denials.

My point still stands that there is no such thing as an exact synonym. All words have nuance. And I believe the context determines in John 21 also, since Jesus changes to phileo in v. 17.

 

[Yeshua1]

My point still stands that there is no such thing as an exact synonym. All words have nuance. And I believe the context determines in John 21 also, since Jesus changes to phileo in v. 17.

Don;t think though it was a case of Jesus was going to keep asking peter until he said the right word for love, but that he was reminding him of denying him those 3 times...

 

[Bro. James]

Years of godly, quality research.

Yes... the 3 denials correspond to the 3 questions. That is why it was on the 3rd question that Peter got upset, as the text makes clear.

And if you refuse to use commentaries but rely solely on lexicons and etymologies, then there is a bigger issue at work. I'm even curious why you bother with etymology. What a word once meant can end up steering you into an incorrect assessment. Diachronic linguistics is not all that helpful for exegesis, imo.

This is a lost cause. You clearly are not wanting to learn from anyone outside of your small trust circle. Just remember, God gave the church teachers in all forms, including writers such as commentators.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What cause would that be? You are correct, my trust circle does not include any Right Reverend Doctors of Divinity, including Augustine, etal.
However I do appreciate what Tertullian had to say about football in "De Spectaculus". This was before the NFL, Constantine, Nicea, and Easter, not Pascha.

I LOVE to study words--following them through various cultures is a real education in human nature.

Why did some translators translate pascha to easter?

Also why did the word baptize get transliterated?

These are all the convoluted conundrums for today.

Words are wonderful--every prefix, root and suffix is filled with meaning.

One more point: the whole counsel of God is in the Scripture. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture. A good concordance is helpful.

What about the functionally illiterate?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

What about the functionally illiterate?

What about them? Your lines have no rhyme or reason.

The functioally illiterate need to gave a good English teacher.

Initially, though they are not able to read they can at least hear the Word of God. Then someone needs to explain it to them. The NIrV would be an ideal version for them to hear the Word of God.

 

[Greektim]

My point still stands that there is no such thing as an exact synonym. All words have nuance. And I believe the context determines in John 21 also, since Jesus changes to phileo in v. 17.

I grant you the exact synonyms point. But there is so much overlap between the two words in question, that the nuances seem irrelevant, even in the same context of one another. As you know, the way of all languages is simplification. That applies to word meanings as well. These words, nuanced heavily at one time, have been simplified to near exact parallels, at least in the realm of emotion (e.g. "do you love me?").

I'm curious, do you see a difference in oida and ginwskw?

 

[Yeshua1]

I grant you the exact synonyms point. But there is so much overlap between the two words in question, that the nuances seem irrelevant, even in the same context of one another. As you know, the way of all languages is simplification. That applies to word meanings as well. These words, nuanced heavily at one time, have been simplified to near exact parallels, at least in the realm of emotion (e.g. "do you love me?").

I'm curious, do you see a difference in oida and ginwskw?

Aren't they both expressing the idea of coming to know someone/something in an intimate fashion?