Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology: 2 Peter (English–Bengali)
Purpose
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines, this document surveys how Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu (with a dedicated sub-column for Bengal’s dominant traditions), Buddhist, and secular perspectives interpret the underlying claim, identifies agreement/divergence, flags misunderstandings a Bengali translation must not invite, and lists sensitive terminology already governed by the glossary and risk registry.
1. The Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture
(Includes Apostolic Eyewitness Authority and Scripture Distortion/Private Interpretation — 2 Peter 1:16-21; 1:12-15; 3:2,15-16)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Verbal-plenary, organic inspiration: human authors wrote in their own voice, style, and vocabulary while the Holy Spirit superintended the result so that it is fully God’s word and fully the author’s word. Sola scriptura: Scripture alone is the final authority; 2 Peter 1:19-21 is a classic evangelical proof text. |
| Catholic | Affirms inspiration but holds Scripture is authoritatively interpreted within Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium; 1:20’s warning against “private interpretation” is often read as supporting the Church’s teaching authority over individual interpretive autonomy — closer to, but not identical with, this curriculum’s forensic reading (origin of prophecy, not license for the Church alone to read it). |
| Orthodox | Similar inspiration doctrine to Catholic teaching, with strong emphasis on Scripture as inseparable from the Church’s liturgical and patristic life; the eyewitness Transfiguration account (1:16-18) is theologically central to Orthodox devotion (the Feast of the Transfiguration). |
| Jewish | Does not recognize 2 Peter as Scripture; however, the underlying claim that prophecy is divinely given, not humanly invented, echoes the Tanakh’s own self-understanding of nevu’ah (prophecy) as originating with God, mediated through, but not fabricated by, the navi (prophet). |
| Islamic | The Qur’an’s own doctrine of revelation (wahy) holds that the text was verbally dictated to Muhammad by the angel Jibril, with the prophet as a passive transmitter rather than a personal voice contributing style or wording — a mechanical-dictation model that differs sharply from 1:21’s organic “carried along” language, in which each biblical author’s own personality, vocabulary, and circumstance remain visible. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | Classical Hindu epistemology distinguishes śruti (“heard,” e.g. the Vedas, understood as eternal, authorless revelation directly perceived by ancient ṛṣis in a state of heightened consciousness) from smṛti (“remembered,” human-composed tradition, e.g. Puranas, epics). Bengali Vaishnava bhakti tradition (following Chaitanya) also elevates guru-paramparā, a living chain of teacher-to-disciple transmission and interpretation, as a source of authoritative meaning alongside text. Both frameworks differ from 2 Peter’s claim of a fixed, closed, personally-authored yet Spirit-given text. |
| Buddhist | Authority rests less on a fixed, verbally-inspired canon than on the Buddha’s experiential realization, transmitted through the Tripitaka/Sutras and, in Mahayana traditions, additional sutras attributed to later revelation; a “closed canon of one final Spirit-given prophetic word” is a distinct claim-structure Buddhism does not generally make. |
| Secular | Treats 2 Peter’s claims of eyewitness testimony and Spirit-inspiration as later theological/rhetorical construction (many secular scholars date 2 Peter as pseudonymous, written after Peter’s death); “prophecy” is explained as retrospective interpretation of ambiguous texts, not predictive foresight. |
Agreement/Divergence: All traditions except secular scholarship affirm that authoritative religious texts have a divine or trans-human origin; the sharp divergence is over mode (mechanical dictation vs. organic Spirit-superintended human authorship vs. impersonal śruti-perception vs. accumulated communal tradition) and over closure (2 Peter assumes a bounded, complete prophetic witness fulfilled in Christ, while Hindu tradition generally treats revelation as an open, ongoing category and some Islamic and Bengali devotional frameworks locate ongoing authoritative interpretation in a living teacher).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- Do not let ব্যক্তিগত/নিজস্ব ব্যাখ্যা (“one’s own interpretation,” 1:20) be read as forbidding ordinary personal Bible reading (contrary to mainstream Bengali Protestant devotional practice).
- Do not let it be read as legitimizing a living human interpreter’s (guru’s, pir’s) authority to supersede or reissue the text’s meaning — the opposite of Peter’s point.
- Do not let চালিত হয়ে (“carried along by the Spirit,” 1:21) read as verbatim dictation (the Qur’anic model) or as impersonal śruti-perception; it must retain the sense of a personally engaged human author.
Sensitive terminology: পবিত্রশাস্ত্র (Scripture, distinct from generic শাস্ত্র religious-corpus usage), ব্যক্তিগত/নিজস্ব ব্যাখ্যা, চালিত হয়ে, প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী (eyewitness), কল্পকাহিনী (myth — must denote deliberate fabrication, not “legend” as one valid sacred-story genre among others).
2. Growing in Christian Virtue
(Includes Equal Standing of Believers, the virtue chain of 1:3-11, and 3:14-18)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Virtue (sanctification) is the Spirit’s ongoing work in a believer already justified by grace through faith; the 1:5-7 virtue chain describes the fruit of a completed salvation, not its precondition. |
| Catholic | Broadly similar but integrates virtue with the sacramental economy (especially the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation and ongoing grace mediated through the Church) and a developed doctrine of infused and acquired virtue drawing on Aristotelian-Thomistic categories. |
| Orthodox | Frames growth in virtue as part of theosis, the lifelong synergistic process (divine grace + human cooperation) of becoming conformed to God’s likeness — directly linking this doctrine to 1:4’s “divine nature” language (see Doctrine 7 below). |
| Jewish | Virtue and character formation are central to Jewish ethical tradition (mussar), typically framed as covenantal faithfulness and obedience to Torah/mitzvot rather than as fruit of a distinctively Christian new-birth/justification event. |
| Islamic | Character formation (akhlaq) is central and highly developed (e.g., patience/sabr, God-consciousness/taqwa), but is understood as human moral effort in submission to God’s revealed law, contributing to one’s weighed record of deeds — a framework the baseline’s “obedience of faith” already distinguishes from grace-grounded Christian virtue. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | Bengali Vaishnava bhakti tradition frames devotional virtues (humility, service, loving devotion/prema to Krishna) as the natural fruit of bhakti; classical Sāṅkhya/Yoga philosophy (widely known in Bengal) analyzes virtue through the triguṇa (sattva/rajas/tamas, three cosmic qualities) as impersonal constituents of nature (prakriti) to be balanced or transcended, not primarily as relational character formed through covenant with a personal God. |
| Buddhist | Virtue (śīla) is one of the three trainings (with meditation and wisdom) toward liberation from suffering through self-cultivated insight and ethical discipline; grounded in impersonal causal law (karma), not a personal deity’s gift or calling. |
| Secular | Reframes virtue through psychology/ethics (character strengths, positive psychology, or secular humanist self-improvement); denies any supernatural empowerment (“divine power,” 1:3) as the actual causal mechanism. |
Agreement/Divergence: Nearly universal agreement that human character can and should be cultivated toward higher moral qualities; sharp divergence over whether this cultivation (a) flows from a prior gift of grace and relationship with a personal God (Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox), (b) fulfills covenant obligation or law (Jewish/Islamic), (c) balances or transcends impersonal cosmic qualities (Hindu philosophical strands), or (d) is self-generated moral/psychological development with no theistic ground (Buddhist/secular).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- ঈশ্বরভক্তি (godliness, eusebeia) must not be read through Vaishnava bhakti’s devotional-emotional register toward a chosen deity of one’s preference; it denotes reverent, obedient character oriented to the one true God.
- সদগুণ (virtue, aretē) must not be read as triguṇa, an impersonal cosmic quality to be balanced, but as a personally cultivated Christian character trait.
- সমমূল্য (equal standing, 1:1) must not be softened in a way that implies apostles/clergy hold a higher grade of faith than ordinary believers — a real risk given residual caste-status and communal-status thinking.
Sensitive terminology: ঈশ্বরভক্তি, সদগুণ, পরিপূর্ণ জ্ঞান (full knowledge), সমমূল্য.
3. False Teachers and Their Judgment
(Includes Judgment of Fallen Angels/OT Precedents and Danger of Apostasy/Relapse — 2 Peter 2:1-22)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Affirms a single normative apostolic gospel from which false teaching is a destructive departure warranting decisive church discipline and doctrinal vigilance; 2:1-3 is frequently taught as grounds for doctrinal discernment ministries. |
| Catholic | Similarly affirms heresy as a serious departure from the deposit of faith, formally defined and adjudicated historically through councils and the Magisterium; shares 2 Peter’s moral seriousness about false teaching. |
| Orthodox | Likewise treats heresy as a grave departure from right doctrine (orthodoxia), historically defined through the Ecumenical Councils; shares the same basic seriousness. |
| Jewish | Has its own strong tradition of guarding against false prophets (Deuteronomy 13, 18) and false messianic claimants; the underlying pattern — testing teachers against a received revelation — is a genuine point of structural agreement, though the content standard (Torah vs. apostolic gospel) differs. |
| Islamic | Also has strong internal categories for bid’ah (innovation) and misguidance, and denounces those who lead people astray from the straight path; however, the wider South Asian cultural habit of treating different madhab (legal schools) or tariqa (Sufi orders) as equally valid variant paths could wrongly color how “destructive heresy” is read if softened. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | Traditionally more pluralistic in structure: differing sampradāya (initiatory lineages, e.g. Gaudiya Vaishnava vs. Shakta traditions prominent in Bengal) are broadly regarded by the wider culture as legitimate alternative paths to a shared ultimate reality, rather than as mutually exclusive truth claims where one may be destructively false. |
| Buddhist | Recognizes the concept of wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi) as spiritually harmful, but final authority for adjudicating teaching rests more on personal verification of experiential/ethical fruit than on a single fixed apostolic deposit. |
| Secular | Reframes “false teachers” and “heresy” as in-group/out-group boundary-policing rhetoric, or as a historical dispute over religious authority and power, without affirming an objective standard by which one teaching is truly destructive and another is truly the gospel. |
Agreement/Divergence: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and to a real degree Jewish and Islamic traditions share 2 Peter’s basic structural conviction that some teaching is not a legitimate alternative but a dangerous departure from a received, binding revelation. The sharpest divergence is with the wider Bengali cultural default (shaped by both Hindu pluralism about sampradāya and a generalized regional ethic of religious tolerance) that tends to relativize doctrinal disagreement into equally valid alternative paths.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- সর্বনাশা ভ্রান্ত মতবাদ (destructive heresy) must not be flattened into neutral “differing opinion” language that would fit a sampradāya-pluralist frame.
- অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা (Tartarus) must never become নরক, avoiding karma-calibrated multi-life hell cosmology.
- The relapse warning (2:20-22, “worse than the first”) must be rendered with full pastoral seriousness without becoming a shame-weapon against converts from other communities, given real social risk around religious change in this region.
Sensitive terminology: সর্বনাশা ভ্রান্ত মতবাদ, মিথ্যা শিক্ষক, অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা, প্রভু (দেসপতেস ownership sense).
4. The Certainty of Christ’s Return
(2 Peter 1:16 preview; 3:3-4,12)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Affirms a literal, personal, bodily, visible return of Christ (the parousia), previewed typologically at the Transfiguration (1:16-18), as a certain future historical event, not a metaphor for an ongoing spiritual presence or influence. |
| Catholic | Affirms the same core doctrine (the Parousia/Second Coming) within the broader eschatological framework of the Church’s teaching on the “last things,” including purgatorial and eschatological nuances Protestant theology typically rejects. |
| Orthodox | Affirms the Second Coming; places strong liturgical and theological weight on the Transfiguration itself (as noted above) as an anticipatory disclosure of Christ’s eschatological glory. |
| Jewish | Awaits a first coming of the Messiah (having not recognized Jesus as Messiah), typically envisioning a this-worldly reign of justice and peace inaugurated by a human/divinely-appointed king rather than the return of a previously incarnate, crucified, and risen divine Son. |
| Islamic | Affirms a future return of Isa (Jesus) before the Day of Judgment, but as a righteous prophet-servant of God who will affirm Islam, defeat the false messiah (al-Masih ad-Dajjal), and die a natural death — categorically different from the Christian parousia of the divine Son consummating his own promised, personal return as judge and king. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | No structural equivalent of a single, unrepeatable, personal return of one historical divine figure to end history; closer analogues exist in avatara theology (Vishnu’s periodic descents, including the future Kalki avatara at the end of the current age), but these occur within a cyclical framework of recurring ages (yugas), not as a single unrepeated culmination. |
| Buddhist | No return of a personal savior figure; some Buddhist traditions (notably Mahayana) anticipate a future Buddha, Maitreya, but this is a future teacher’s arising within an ongoing cosmic process, not the return of a previously incarnate divine person who already came once. |
| Secular | Treats “the promise of his coming” (3:4) as an unfulfilled first-century expectation later reinterpreted or spiritualized by the church across centuries of delay; denies any future personal, bodily return as a historical event to be expected. |
Agreement/Divergence: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions agree closely on this doctrine’s substance. Judaism and Islam both affirm meaningful future divine intervention in history but locate it in categorically different figures/frameworks that must not be conflated with the Christian parousia. Hindu and Buddhist frameworks locate analogous hope within a cyclical rather than linear-terminal cosmology.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- আগমন (parousia) must denote a literal, personal, future, bodily return — precisely what 3:3-4’s scoffers deny by appeal to unbroken natural continuity; a translation must not accidentally lend support to their position by rendering it vaguely.
- Must not be conflated with the Islamic return of Isa as a prophet-judge under a different theological framework, nor with Hindu avatara-cycle expectation.
- শুকতারা (morning star, 1:19) must avoid any astrological/omen-reading framing.
Sensitive terminology: আগমন, উপহাসকারী (scoffer), প্রতিশ্রুতি (promise), শুকতারা.
5. The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment
(Includes New Creation and Final Righteousness — 2 Peter 2:9; 3:7,10-14)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | A single, final, future Day of the Lord: decisive judgment of the wicked, deliverance/vindication of the righteous, cosmic dissolution by fire, and the once-for-all inauguration of new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness permanently dwells. |
| Catholic | Affirms the same final judgment framework, integrated with its distinct doctrines of the particular judgment (at individual death) and purgation prior to the general judgment. |
| Orthodox | Affirms the same final, singular Day of Judgment and cosmic renewal, generally with less emphasis on purgatorial categories than Catholic doctrine and more emphasis on the transfiguration/glorification of creation itself. |
| Jewish | The Tanakh’s own “Day of the LORD” (Yom YHWH, e.g. Joel 2, Amos 5) is 2 Peter’s direct conceptual ancestor: a decisive, climactic day of divine judgment and vindication, generally still awaited by Jewish eschatology within a this-worldly messianic-age framework rather than tied to Christ’s return. |
| Islamic | Yawm al-Qiyāmah (the Day of Resurrection/Standing) is a structurally close analogue — a single, final, decisive day of universal judgment — but conducted under a framework of each individual’s weighed good and bad deeds recorded in a personal ledger, categorically distinct from 2 Peter’s framework of righteousness received through grace and faith in Christ’s finished work. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | Pralaya, periodic cosmic dissolution occurring at the end of each kalpa, followed by a new cycle of creation, is the closest cosmological analogue — but it is one recurring phase within beginningless, endless cyclical time (saṃsāra at a cosmic scale), not a single, final, unrepeated event as 2 Peter insists. |
| Buddhist | No equivalent doctrine of a single cosmic Day of Judgment administered by a personal God; the deepest available analogue is the impermanence (anicca) of all conditioned phenomena and the cycle of arising and passing away, again without a terminal, personal, judicial consummation. |
| Secular | Denies any future supernatural cosmic judgment or literal conflagration/renewal; if addressed at all, treats 3:10-13’s imagery as ancient apocalyptic literary convention, sometimes drawn into contemporary comparison with (non-divinely-caused) ecological or civilizational collapse scenarios. |
Agreement/Divergence: Judaism and Islam share the deepest structural resemblance (a real, future, decisive Day of divine judgment), making the distinction of basis (grace vs. Torah-covenant vs. weighed deeds) the crucial point requiring precision, not a denial of any shared concept. Hindu and Buddhist frameworks differ most sharply at the level of cosmological shape — cyclical/repeating vs. Peter’s linear, once-for-all consummation.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- প্রভুর দিন (Day of the Lord) must be a fixed, singular, final event — not one of Yawm al-Qiyāmah’s weighed-deeds judgment mechanics, and not one turn of pralaya’s endlessly repeating cosmic wheel.
- অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা (Tartarus, carried over from ch. 2) and নতুন আকাশমণ্ডল ও নতুন পৃথিবী (new heavens and new earth, 3:13) must both retain their once-for-all, non-repeatable character.
- ধার্মিকতা (righteousness) “dwelling” permanently in the new creation (3:13) must be read as a definitive, final state, not a temporary phase before the next cosmic cycle begins.
Sensitive terminology: প্রভুর দিন, বিচারের দিন, বিনাশ, নতুন আকাশমণ্ডল ও নতুন পৃথিবী, চোরের মতো.
6. Patience of God’s Timing
(2 Peter 3:8-9,15)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | God’s apparent “delay” in fulfilling the promise of Christ’s return is in fact purposeful patience aimed at giving space for repentance; time itself is under his personal, relational governance, not a constraint on him. |
| Catholic | Substantially the same reading; often connected pastorally to the Church’s own long historical experience of “waiting” across two millennia while continuing sacramental and evangelistic life. |
| Orthodox | Same core affirmation; often emphasized liturgically in the framework of the Church living “already/not yet” between Christ’s first and second comings. |
| Jewish | Divine patience and long-suffering (as in the Exodus 34:6 formula, “slow to anger”) is a deeply rooted biblical theme Judaism shares; the messianic age’s timing is likewise entrusted to God’s own purposes rather than calculable by human reckoning. |
| Islamic | God’s patience/forbearance (a divine attribute reflected in the names ar-Rahim, al-Halim) toward sinners before the Day of Judgment is a shared theme, though set within a framework where the exact timing of the Hour is known to God alone and human responsibility is to prepare through righteous deeds and submission rather than to await a specific promised redemptive event tied to Christ. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | Cosmic time is normally conceived through the mahayuga/kalpa system, vast impersonal cycles of enormous, fixed duration through which the universe repeatedly passes; time itself is less an expression of a personal being’s purposeful forbearance toward specific individuals than a structural feature of cosmic order (often linked to karma working itself out across lifetimes). |
| Buddhist | Similarly operates within vast cyclical timescales (kalpas) governed by impersonal causal law rather than a personal deity’s patient forbearance toward particular people’s repentance. |
| Secular | Explains the “delay” of the parousia as evidence the original expectation of an imminent return was simply mistaken, reinterpreted by later generations of the church as theological patience rather than genuine divine forbearance. |
Agreement/Divergence: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity share a personal, purposeful concept of divine patience toward moral agents. The sharpest divergence is with Hindu and Buddhist frameworks, where the operative concept of vast time is structural/impersonal (yugas/kalpas, karmic unfolding) rather than the deliberate forbearance of a personal God toward specific people’s repentance — precisely the point 3:8-9 is making.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- “A day is as a thousand years” (3:8) must not read as an endorsement of Hindu cyclical cosmology; a brief translator note distinguishing personal, purposeful divine patience from an impersonal cosmic time-scale is recommended wherever this verse is taught.
- সহনশীলতা/ধৈর্য (patience) and মন-পরিবর্তন (repentance) must remain personal and relationally directed, not read as impersonal cosmic slowness or fatalistic delay (নিয়তি/ভাগ্য).
Sensitive terminology: প্রভুর কাছে একদিন হাজার বছরের সমান, সহনশীলতা/ধৈর্য, মন-পরিবর্তন, বিনষ্ট হওয়া (perish).
7. Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption
(2 Peter 1:3-4; 2:19-20)
| Tradition | Position |
|---|---|
| Protestant | ”Partakers of the divine nature” (1:4) is generally read as participation in God’s moral character and incorruptible life through grace and union with Christ, sharply distinguished from any ontological merger of essence; the believer remains fully a creature, transformed but never divinized in being. |
| Catholic | Affirms a doctrine of divinization (participation in divine life through grace, especially through the sacraments) with real historical roots in patristic theology; more open than most Protestant traditions to language of the believer being “made divine” in a qualified, grace-mediated sense, while still maintaining creature/Creator distinction. |
| Orthodox | Treats this verse as a primary scriptural anchor for theosis (deification): through grace, believers really participate in God’s energies (not his essence, per the Palamite essence/energies distinction) and are progressively transformed into Christ’s likeness — the most developed and most affirmative Christian reading of “divine nature” language, and an important internal Christian point of difference translators should be aware of even though it is not itself the primary interfaith risk. |
| Jewish | No structural equivalent doctrine of human participation in the divine nature; the Creator/creature distinction in Jewish theology is maintained with comparable rigor to Protestant Christianity, though without this specific participatory-grace category. |
| Islamic | Strongly rejects any doctrine implying creaturely participation in God’s own nature as a violation of tawhid (God’s absolute, unshared oneness and transcendence); the very phrase “divine nature” applied to redeemed humans is likely to be heard as a serious theological claim requiring very careful, qualified framing for Muslim-background readers. |
| Hindu (Bengali traditions) | This is the single highest-risk convergence point in the whole book: Advaita Vedanta teaches that the individual self (ātman) is, at the deepest level, not merely related to but identical with the Absolute (Brahman) — “tat tvam asi,” “thou art that” — making self-realization the recognition of an already-existing divine identity. Bengali Vaishnava bhakti tradition (a qualified non-dualism, following Chaitanya’s acintya-bheda-abheda) instead maintains an eternal personal distinction between the soul (jivatma) and God (Krishna) even within intimate loving relationship — closer in structure, though not content, to the Christian participation-without-merger reading. Both frameworks are live and influential in Bengal and must be considered together. |
| Buddhist | Rejects a permanent self (anatta) altogether, so a doctrine of a stable creaturely self “partaking” of a divine nature has no direct analogue; ultimate liberation (nirvana) is the cessation of clinging and the dissolution of the illusion of a fixed self, not participation in a personal divine being’s own nature. |
| Secular | Reads this language as ancient religious-philosophical (Hellenistic/Middle Platonist) influence on early Christian vocabulary, describing psychological or moral transformation in mythic terms rather than any literal metaphysical participation in a real deity. |
Agreement/Divergence: This doctrine produces the sharpest and most consequential divergence in the entire book. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions all affirm some form of real participation in God while maintaining Creator/creature distinction (differing mainly in degree and mechanism), which is compatible with the curriculum’s own careful reading. Advaita Vedanta’s ātman-Brahman identity claim is a fundamentally different metaphysical structure (identity, not participation) and is the primary risk this translation must guard against; Islamic tawhid provides the opposite-pole caution (any language of creaturely participation in God’s nature at all is theologically alarming and needs careful framing).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি (divine nature) and সহভাগী (partaker/sharer) must never be rendered in a way suggesting ontological identity or merger with God’s essence (an Advaita Vedanta-compatible reading); the doctrine is participation in God’s moral character and incorruptible life through grace, with the Creator/creature distinction fully intact.
- Must not be presented in language so strong that Muslim-background readers hear a claim incompatible with, and needlessly inflammatory to, tawhid without the necessary qualification that this is moral/relational participation, not shared essence.
- ক্ষয়/বিনাশ (corruption) and কামনা/অভিলাষ (desire/lust) as the corruption being escaped must remain moral-spiritual categories, not be misread through a karmic-bondage/liberation (mukti/mokṣa-adjacent) lens already excluded by the baseline’s পরিত্রাণ terminology decision.
Sensitive terminology: ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি, সহভাগী, ঈশ্বরিক সামর্থ্য (divine power), ক্ষয়/বিনাশ, স্বাধীনতা/দাসত্বে বদ্ধ হওয়া (freedom/enslaved, 2:19).
Cross-Document Consistency Note
This document’s tradition-by-tradition analysis directly grounds the risk tiers and routing decisions recorded in assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json and the chapter-by-chapter matrix in analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md. Any future revision to a comparative-theology judgment here that would change a risk tier must be reflected in both of those files as well.
Cross-reference: 08_core_glossary.md for the term-level renderings governed by the risk reasoning above. Cross-reference: 11_doctrine_analysis.md for the full-book, chapter-by-chapter doctrine matrix.