God does not love you...

[Drich]

The original definition had nothing to do with God, it was adopted by Christianity who twisted its meaning to its own ends as you well know so will you kindly cut the bullshit.

Yes or no do you know what a lexicon is?

I haven't noticed you quote any sources other than your personal opinion, fundamentalist christian websites and the equivalent of "ask.com".

(This is what happens when i stop smiling at your comments)

Then you are either lying, illinformed, or illiterate and whom ever is reading for you has fail to tell you I gave the names of no less than 4 lexicons I have provided at least a half a dozen times in this thread.

The problem with you guys seem to be either you do not understand what a lexicon is, or you don't know how or why they are used. Literally every other source you all have quoted for this discussion have base their definition on what lexicons have to say. Yet you all continually refer to secondary material or even commentary as source material. Do you not understand how basic research works? Commentary like what is found in a wiki or even an encyclopedia is based on the work of source material. I have provided source material and you do not seem to understand what that is in relation to whatever you are using to try and undermine what has been presented.

I also find it interesting wikipedia was good enough when it came to you describing the different kinds of Greek love but here, maybe this is more to your liking:

What post number did I quote wiki?

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agape
To put it in terms you can understand; these are the people who tell wikipedia off if they're not getting it right.

you do know this source supports my original definitions right?

Take your time, you'll find Agape is a word stolen from great scholars and writers during the time of Plato (to describe a feeling of non-sexual affection or love by the way), repurposed and then reapplied frequently throughout the Bible.

Kinda like cool, or sick, or hot.. So what??? In the context it is being used the word means exactly what the author intended. We have enough documentation to define the word in question. Those definitions are placed in Koine to English lexicons. This is the end of the argument as lexicons are The source material for any translations being done from one language to another.

Hm, Christians taking the words of dead geniuses out of context?

it was the written language of it's day, how else were Christians to record the principles of God? Now what if a principle in one language did not have a word being described in another? Were they expected to simply leave out what the written language (Greek) could not describe in the spoken language (Arimaic?) No they took the closest thing they could find in the Greek and supplemented the original word with a more detailed definition. Just like you would have done if you were trying to describe something in another language.

---

Expose my strawman by misrepresenting my argument. Well done. My point is that you and everyone like you can just make up justifications for what you believe, because no one can proof your God does not exist. That is dishonest.

Then answer my challenge and lets go line by line so you can have your "honest answers." Or can't you argue outside of sweeping generalities?

---

It is only an answer for those in whom seek out the God of the bible. All others are free to do as they wish with this life.

Thats conveiniant except most of us have read the Bible cover to cover sooo... try again.

"Seek out the God of the bible" is not the same as reading the bible.