Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
'Persuasion' or 'winning eloquence' [1]) is the personification of persuasion. [2] She is typically presented as an important companion of Aphrodite. Her opposite is Bia, the personification of force. [3]
Whereas, the Greeks took the notion of pistis as persuasive discourse that was elliptical and concentrated on the "affect and effect rather than on the representation of the truth". [7] The evolution of pistis in Christianity as a persuasive rhetorical technique starkly contrasts with its meaning used by the Greeks. [ 6 ]
[5] The third virtue is also commonly referred to as "charity", as this is how the influential King James Bible translated the Greek word agape. The traditional understanding of the difference between cardinal and theological virtues is that the latter are not fully accessible to humans in their natural state without assistance from God. [6]
Several alternatives to the Ten Commandments have been promulgated by different persons and groups, which intended to improve on the lists of laws known as the Ten Commandments that appear in the Bible. Lists of these kinds exist in many different cultures and times. They are sometimes given names – for example, the Hindu Yamas.
The divine has the power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force and suggest a forbearance in divine power instead. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.
Kelhoffer spends part of his book Persecution, Persuasion and Power arguing that persecution in Luke–Acts is used by the author to accomplish three things: (1) question the legitimacy of the accusers, (2) confirm the legitimacy of the faithful accused, and (3) derive legitimacy for the author's Gentile audience who might be suffering their ...
Antithetic parallelism is a form of parallelism where the meaning of two or more excerpts of text are observed, although directly linked by providing the same meaning from differing perspectives.
According to tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to conclude that the Bible did not support Calvinism. [16] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva. [17] Arminius avoided adding to the controversy apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9.