Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — Ephesians — English → Bengali
This document surveys how the nine curriculum doctrines are interpreted across Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and secular perspectives, with a dedicated column for the destination culture’s dominant traditions (Bengali Hindu — including its strongly Shakta/bhakti-devotional and caste-conditioned social inflection — and Bengali Islam — including its Sufi-pir folk-devotional inflection, which together constitute the actual lived religious environment of most Bengali readers in both West Bengal and Bangladesh). Its purpose is to identify agreement, divergence, translation-invited misunderstandings, and sensitive terminology for each doctrine, extending (never contradicting) the risk framework already fixed in doctrine_risk_registry.json and the term choices already fixed in translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json.
1. Salvation by Grace through Faith (Ephesians 2:1-10)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Sola gratia, sola fide. Grace and faith wholly exclude works as the ground of salvation (2:8-9); good works (2:10) are salvation’s fruit, never its cause. Foundational Reformation proof-text. |
| Catholic | Grace is likewise prior and necessary, but understood as enabling a real human cooperation whose grace-empowered good works genuinely contribute to ongoing justification/sanctification; reads 2:9 as excluding self-generated “works of the law,” not grace-enabled merit. |
| Orthodox | Salvation as theosis — a synergistic, participatory transformation in which divine grace and human free response cooperate; less concerned with a strict grace/merit antithesis than with organic growth into likeness to God. |
| Jewish | No mediatorial “salvation from sin” category in the Pauline sense; covenant faithfulness (mitzvot) is a relational response within an already-given covenant, not merit accumulated to earn entry. Paul’s works/grace antithesis is often read as a polemic against, or departure from, Second Temple covenantal nomism. |
| Islamic | Salvation (najat) is God’s mercy (rahma) combined with submission (islam) and deeds weighed at judgment; no strictly gratuitous salvation apart from deeds is doctrinally available. |
| Hindu | Liberation (moksha) spans a spectrum from devotional grace (prasada, especially in bhakti traditions) to strict self-effort (jnana/karma yoga); in all forms it is liberation FROM the rebirth cycle — a different ontological category from reconciliation with a personal God. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Chaitanya bhakti tradition, deeply rooted in Bengal) has a well-developed devotional grace theology (Krishna’s kripa/prasad) that could create a false bridge for অনুগ্রহ, pulling it toward devotional favor-for-devotion exchange rather than Paul’s forensic, works-excluding grace. Bengali folk Islam’s veneration of pirs (barakah transmitted through a saint’s blessing/lineage) offers a parallel false bridge. Both require the works/grace contrast in 2:9-10 to be rendered with maximal, unambiguous force. |
| Buddhist | No creator-God/grace category; liberation (nirvana) is self-effort via the Noble Eightfold Path, extinguishing craving. (Pure Land Buddhism’s Amida-grace analogue is not significantly present in Bengal.) |
| Secular | Grace is frequently flattened into a psychological metaphor for unconditional self-acceptance, detached from the specific problem (sin, wrath, spiritual deadness) Paul says it answers. |
Agreement: Broad agreement that salvation involves divine initiative and is not purely self-achieved. Divergence: Sharpest fault line in the entire curriculum — whether works are excluded as basis (Protestant/this curriculum’s reading) or included as a grace-enabled cooperant cause (Catholic/Orthodox), or weighed at judgment (Islamic), or self-generated (Hindu/Buddhist self-effort strands). Misunderstandings to avoid: অনুগ্রহ must not be heard as bhakti-style prasad or pir-mediated barakah; কর্ম/সৎকর্ম sequencing (fruit, never cause) must never blur. Sensitive terminology: অনুগ্রহ, বিশ্বাস, পরিত্রাণ, কর্ম, সৎকর্ম, সৃষ্টি (workmanship).
2. Election and Predestination in Christ (Ephesians 1:4-5, 1:9, 1:11)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Internally divided: Reformed/Calvinist unconditional election; Arminian/Wesleyan conditional election by foreknowledge. Common ground: election is “in Christ,” gracious, and issues in adoption. |
| Catholic | Affirms predestination as mystery, generally resisting deterministic readings; various schools (Thomist/Molinist) reconcile it with genuine free will. |
| Orthodox | Prefers “foreknowledge” harmonized with real human freedom (synergy) and is wary of Western double-predestination debates altogether. |
| Jewish | ”Chosenness” is corporate/national election of Israel tied to covenant, not individual predestination to eternal salvation — an analogically related but categorically distinct idea. |
| Islamic | Taqdir (divine decree) is a major, often strongly deterministic doctrine in popular piety, though classical Sunni theology affirms both decree and human responsibility. |
| Hindu | No direct equivalent to a personal pre-creation loving choice; nearest analogues are karma-determined destiny (niyati) and fate (bhagya) — impersonal cause-and-effect, not personal love. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Popular Bengali Muslim piety frequently voices strong taqdir-fatalism (“Allah-r iccha,” “je hobar tai hobe”); popular Bengali Hindu piety frequently invokes bhagya/niyoti for life outcomes. পূর্বনির্ধারণ is at high risk of being heard through either impersonal-fate frame rather than Paul’s explicitly relational, loving, adoptive framing (“in love he predestined us,” 1:4-5). |
| Buddhist | No creator-God election category; karma and dependent origination govern outcomes impersonally, with no divine chooser. |
| Secular | Predestination is read as a threat to free will and moral responsibility — a live philosophical objection (the determinism debate) that transfers directly into how the doctrine is received. |
Agreement: Most traditions have some category relating destiny to a higher will or law. Divergence: Personal, loving, Christ-centered choice (Ephesians) vs. impersonal fate/karma (Hindu) vs. binding decree (Islamic popular piety) vs. corporate covenant-election (Jewish). Misunderstandings to avoid: পূর্বনির্ধারণ must never be left to stand alone without the “in love” qualifier; a translator note is mandatory at first occurrence. Sensitive terminology: পূর্বনির্ধারণ, ঈশ্বরের মনোনয়ন (baseline election term, kept distinct), ইচ্ছা (will), উদ্দেশ্য (purpose).
3. The Church as the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4-16, 5:23-30)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Emphasizes the invisible/universal church of all believers, “body of Christ” as organic union of all who believe; generally lower institutional-hierarchical weight. |
| Catholic | Strong sacramental/institutional ecclesiology; the visible hierarchical Church (magisterium, papacy) is held to uniquely embody the Body of Christ, governed through Christ’s vicar and the sacraments. |
| Orthodox | Eucharistic ecclesiology: the local Church gathered around its bishop celebrating the Eucharist fully manifests the Body of Christ; conciliar rather than papal structure. |
| Jewish | No ecclesiology category as such; closest structural analogue is the covenant assembly (qahal/kehillah), without incarnational Christ-body theology. |
| Islamic | The ummah — the worldwide community of believers bound by shared submission to God — is the closest structural parallel, but it is juridical-communal, not christologically organic (no living head). |
| Hindu | No single unified “church”; looser analogues are sampradaya (lineage-based devotional communities) or guru-disciple structures; historically, caste stratifies rather than unites religious community. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Bengali social life is structured around para (neighborhood) and samaj (caste-society) bonds, and in Muslim contexts around the mosque-ummah community; মণ্ডলী must be clearly distinguished from both merely social neighborhood belonging AND from caste-stratified religious community — the very hierarchy Ephesians’ one-body doctrine confronts. |
| Buddhist | The sangha (monastic/lay community following the Dharma) is a structural analogue but lacks the organic Christ-as-head Christology. |
| Secular | ”Body of Christ” is easily read as an organizational metaphor for team unity, losing the ontological, Spirit-constituted union claim. |
Agreement: Virtually all traditions have some concept of a bounded religious community with internal roles. Divergence: Organic, Christ-animated union (Ephesians) vs. institutional-hierarchical embodiment (Catholic) vs. eucharistic-local manifestation (Orthodox) vs. juridical community (Islamic) vs. caste-stratified community (Hindu). Misunderstandings to avoid: মস্তক (head) must never read as mere positional dominance; it must retain the organic, nourishing, self-giving sense that also governs the household code (5:23). Sensitive terminology: মণ্ডলী, মস্তক, দেহ, পূর্ণতা.
4. Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity (Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:6)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Grounds the theological case for gospel access without ethnic/national barrier; frequently applied homiletically to racial and social reconciliation. |
| Catholic | Affirms the doctrine; historical supersessionist readings existed in various periods, corrected toward affirming Israel’s ongoing covenant significance in modern magisterial teaching (e.g., Nostra Aetate). |
| Orthodox | Affirms the doctrine; historically less directly engaged with Jewish-Gentile social tension in its main geographic contexts than Western Christianity, but the teaching is held. |
| Jewish | From this perspective the passage can read as dissolving Israel’s covenant distinctiveness into a Gentile-majority movement — a live sensitivity requiring non-triumphalist framing in any teaching notes. |
| Islamic | The ummah doctrine also claims to transcend tribal/ethnic distinction (“no Arab has superiority over non-Arab”) — a partial structural parallel, though grounded in submission to God’s final message rather than union with a crucified and risen Messiah. |
| Hindu | Caste (varna/jati) hierarchically structures religious and social status; Ephesians’ claim that ALL such barriers are demolished in one new humanity is the single most socially disruptive claim in the letter for caste-conscious readers. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Both residual caste consciousness within Bengali Hindu (and even some Bengali Christian) communities and enduring Hindu-Muslim communal identity lines (partition-era and ongoing communal tension across West Bengal/Bangladesh) make this doctrine unusually loaded; দূরে/নিকটে, বিভেদের প্রাচীর, এক নতুন মানুষ must retain full force, never diplomatically softened for social comfort. |
| Buddhist | The Buddha’s own social critique of caste gives the sangha a partial resonance point, though grounded in a different metaphysic (no permanent self uniting believers, versus real union in Christ). |
| Secular | Easily read as an early instance of an inclusive/anti-discrimination ethic, flattening the doctrine into a social-justice slogan and losing its specifically christological ground (union IN CHRIST, through his cross/blood). |
Agreement: Wide consensus that religious community should not be reducible to ethnic privilege. Divergence: Whether unity is achieved through a NEW creative act grounded in Christ’s cross (Ephesians) versus a pre-existing doctrinal universalism (Islamic ummah) or a social-ethical ideal (secular). Misunderstandings to avoid: Never present this as generic tolerance; it is a genuine ontological new-creation claim. Sensitive terminology: দূরে/নিকটে, বিভেদের প্রাচীর, এক নতুন মানুষ, মিলন সাধন করা (reconcile), সহনাগরিক (fellow citizens — contemporary citizenship-politics sensitivity).
5. The Mystery of Christ Revealed (Ephesians 1:9, 3:3-9, 5:32, 6:19)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Mystery = God’s redemptive plan, hidden in OT types/shadows, now fully and PUBLICLY disclosed in the gospel; Scripture’s clarity means no further esoteric revelation is needed. |
| Catholic | Affirms the once-revealed mystery in Christ, but also holds a doctrine of the ongoing development of the Church’s understanding of that deposit of faith through Tradition and magisterial teaching. |
| Orthodox | ”Mystery” (mysterion) is also the technical term for the sacraments themselves; real risk of conflating Ephesians’ “mystery of Christ” with the seven sacramental Mysteries. |
| Jewish | No equivalent category; the claim that the Hebrew Scriptures secretly foretold a Gentile-inclusive, cross-centered Messiah is read as a Christian retrospective reading, not a shared conclusion. |
| Islamic | Revelation (wahy) is understood as discrete verbal dictation culminating and sealed in the Qur’an; Ephesians’ model of progressive, Spirit-illumined understanding through apostles and prophets is a fundamentally different revelatory epistemology. |
| Hindu | Shruti (“that which is heard”) is eternal truth perceived by ancient sages in meditative states — a non-historical, non-progressive revelatory model, unlike Paul’s historically unfolding plan disclosed through apostles/prophets. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Bengali tantric and folk-Sufi/pir traditions both carry strong “hidden knowledge for initiates” associations (guru-diksha secret mantra transmission; a pir’s guarded spiritual knowledge). নিগূঢ়তত্ত্ব was deliberately chosen over রহস্য specifically to avoid this collision, since Paul insists the mystery is now OPENLY preached to all — the opposite of guarded esoteric transmission. |
| Buddhist | No revealed-mystery category in the theistic sense; Vajrayana esoteric teachings (limited presence in Bengal) ARE restricted to initiates — the exact opposite dynamic from Ephesians, reinforcing the need for an “openly revealed” rendering. |
| Secular | ”Mystery” is likely read as literary suspense-plot language or a synonym for “the unexplained,” missing the technical sense of a specific redemptive-historical disclosure. |
Agreement: Most traditions have some category of once-hidden, now-disclosed sacred knowledge. Divergence: Openly, publicly preached to all (Ephesians) vs. restricted-to-initiates esoteric transmission (tantra, folk-Sufi, Vajrayana) vs. sealed final dictation (Islamic) vs. non-historical eternal hearing (Hindu shruti). Misunderstandings to avoid: নিগূঢ়তত্ত্ব must never be replaced with রহস্য; must be paired, where first introduced, with explicit “made known to all” language. Sensitive terminology: নিগূঢ়তত্ত্ব, প্রত্যাদেশ (revelation), ব্যবস্থাপনা (stewardship).
6. Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Spans robust belief in personal demonic forces (charismatic/Pentecostal and much of the global South) to more metaphorical structural-evil readings (some liberal Protestant strands); mainstream evangelical reading: real spiritual conflict, weapons are spiritual disciplines, not ritual objects. |
| Catholic | Affirms real demonic activity (formal exorcism rite exists); armor imagery often coheres with sacramental practice (sign of the cross, holy water, blessed objects) — a point of possible convergence-then-divergence with Bengali folk protective-object practice requiring careful handling. |
| Orthodox | Strong tradition of spiritual warfare through ascetic practice and unceasing prayer (e.g., the Jesus Prayer); demonic reality strongly affirmed within a rich ascetical-mystical framework. |
| Jewish | Belief in evil spiritual forces (ha-Satan, shedim) present in some strands, especially kabbalistic and folk tradition, but not systematized as Ephesians’ cosmic-ruler cluster; mainstream rabbinic Judaism today de-emphasizes personal demonology. |
| Islamic | Robust, mainstream belief in jinn and shaytan as real spiritual beings actively opposing humans — strong shared conceptual territory with Ephesians 6 — but folk practice commonly responds with taveez (amulets), ruqyah exorcism, and pir-mediated protection, precisely the ritual-object response Paul’s armor metaphor does NOT prescribe. |
| Hindu | Robust belief in malevolent spirits (bhut, pret, dakini) and astrological/planetary affliction; common responses include tantric exorcism, protective mantras, amulets, and propitiatory ritual. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Carries the HIGHEST syncretism risk in the entire curriculum, because BOTH the Hindu-majority and Muslim-majority halves of the Bengali readership have deeply entrenched, currently-practiced ritual-object and folk-exorcism traditions (taveez, ojha folk exorcists, tantric protection). শক্তি must never appear anywhere in this passage’s vocabulary, and an explicit translator note distinguishing spiritual disciplines (truth, righteousness, faith, the word of God, prayer) from magical protective objects is mandatory. |
| Buddhist | Various classes of spirits (preta, asura, Mara as tempter-figure) exist in popular cosmology, but liberation comes through wisdom/detachment rather than spiritual battle; limited structural parallel. |
| Secular | Likely reads the entire passage as pre-scientific mythologizing of psychological or systemic struggle (“rulers and authorities” = social injustice), risking total reduction to metaphor with no ontological referent. |
Agreement: Nearly universal belief across Bengal’s dominant traditions (Hindu and Muslim alike) in the reality of hostile spiritual forces — an unusual point of common ground with Ephesians 6’s premise. Divergence: Sharp divergence over the PRESCRIBED RESPONSE — spiritual disciplines and prayer (Ephesians) versus amulets, mantras, and ritual exorcism (both Bengali folk-Hindu and folk-Muslim practice). Misunderstandings to avoid: The armor metaphor must never be presented in a way assimilable to a protective charm; the fourfold power-cluster must never be softened into pure metaphor for social evil. Sensitive terminology: ঈশ্বরের সম্পূর্ণ যুদ্ধসজ্জা (whole armor of God), কর্তৃত্ব/ক্ষমতা cluster (never শক্তি), দিয়াবল.
7. Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships (Ephesians 5:21-6:9)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Spans complementarian (headship/submission as creation-order, but husband’s love must be Christlike-sacrificial) to egalitarian (5:21’s mutual submission as the controlling frame; hierarchical language read as culturally accommodated) — vigorous internal debate. |
| Catholic | Generally complementarian in official teaching; marriage held as a sacrament reflecting Christ-Church union; firm on indissolubility. |
| Orthodox | Similarly complementarian; marriage as a sacramental “mystery” (crowning ceremony imagery) with mutual self-giving emphasized within a traditionally gendered household order. |
| Jewish | Traditional rabbinic household structure is also historically patriarchal but grounded in halakhic covenantal duties (e.g., the ketubah marriage contract) rather than a Christ-typology; no husband-as-Christ analogy. |
| Islamic | The Qur’anic household framework assigns headship/maintenance responsibility (qiwamah) to husbands — a surface structural similarity to household submission language, but grounded in Qur’anic legal prescription, not union-with-Christ typology. |
| Hindu | Traditional Bengali Hindu patriarchal joint-family structure and the pativrata ideal of wifely devotion to the husband offer strong pre-existing cultural resonance that could be used to justify unilateral submission without the correcting force of Ephesians 5:21/5:25. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | BOTH dominant Bengali religious cultures — Hindu patriarchal joint-family norms and Islamic qiwamah-based household norms — already possess robust, socially reinforced models of wife/child subordination; this is precisely why 5:21 (mutual submission) and 5:25 (the husband’s Christlike self-sacrifice, at HIGHER cost than the wife’s submission) must never be excerpted or taught in isolation — doing so would simply confirm existing patriarchal assumptions rather than transform them as Paul intends. |
| Buddhist | No comparably codified household-hierarchy doctrine at the core-teaching level, though Bengali Buddhist minority communities largely share the region’s general patriarchal social norms. |
| Secular | Modern secular egalitarian norms will likely read “wives submit” as inherently regressive regardless of the mutual-submission framing; 5:21 and 5:25 must be actively surfaced to avoid wholesale dismissal of the passage. |
Agreement: Broad cross-traditional agreement on structured household roles and mutual obligation of some kind. Divergence: The DEGREE to which submission is unilateral versus explicitly mutual, and whether the husband’s obligation is framed as authority (Islamic qiwamah, popular Hindu patriarchy) or as costly self-sacrifice modeled on the cross (Ephesians). Misunderstandings to avoid: বশীভূত হওয়া must never be taught or excerpted apart from 5:21 and 5:25 together. Sensitive terminology: বশীভূত হওয়া, মস্তক, একদেহ (one flesh).
8. Gifts for Building Up the Church (Ephesians 4:7-16)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Spans continuationist to cessationist views on miraculous gifts; broad agreement that gifts equip ALL believers for ministry (priesthood of all believers), not a professional clerical monopoly. |
| Catholic | Charisms affirmed alongside a strong ordained-office structure; charismatic renewal movements within Catholicism also affirm ongoing gifts, integrated under episcopal oversight. |
| Orthodox | Gifts of the Spirit affirmed within a strongly liturgical, sacramental, and bishop-centered structure; less individualistic emphasis than much Protestant charismatic practice. |
| Jewish | No direct “spiritual gift” category; closest analogues are specific communal roles (priest/kohen, rabbi/teacher, biblical prophet) assigned by lineage or recognized learning, not universally distributed Spirit-enablement. |
| Islamic | No equivalent doctrine of universally distributed Spirit-given ministry gifts; religious authority (imam, mufti, alim) is typically earned through study and communal recognition, not received as sovereign grace-gift. |
| Hindu | Siddhis (supernatural yogic attainments achieved through disciplined sadhana) are the nearest surface analogue, but these are self-attained through effort/practice — the opposite of grace-given, unearned enablement. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | Bengali Hindu folk piety readily assimilates “spiritual gift” language toward either siddhi (attainment through practice) or বর (a boon a deity grants a devotee, often transactionally in exchange for devotion), hence the glossary’s insistence on the আত্মিক qualifier every time; Bengali Islamic folk piety may analogously assimilate it toward barakah transmitted through a pir’s blessing/lineage — again a transactional-mediatorial model Ephesians does not teach. |
| Buddhist | No theistic gift-giver, though certain meditative attainments (jhana states, abhijñā) are structurally similar to siddhi — again self-cultivated, not grace-received. |
| Secular | ”Spiritual gifts” likely read as a metaphor for natural talent/aptitude, secularizing away the Spirit-sourced, church-building purpose entirely. |
Agreement: Most traditions recognize distinct roles/capacities within a religious community. Divergence: Grace-given, unearned enablement (Ephesians) vs. self-attained yogic power (siddhi) vs. lineage/study-earned authority (Jewish/Islamic religious office). Misunderstandings to avoid: আত্মিক বর must never appear without আত্মিক; never read as boon-for-devotion exchange. Sensitive terminology: আত্মিক বর, প্রেরিত, সুসমাচার প্রচারক, পালক, শিক্ষক.
9. Walking in Newness of Life (Ephesians 2:10, 4:17-24, 5:1-2,8,15)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Decisive, once-for-all regeneration (new birth) received by grace, followed by progressive sanctification; “old self/new self” is a definitive identity-change with ongoing outworking, not a repeatable ritual renewal. |
| Catholic | Baptismal regeneration (removes original sin, infuses sanctifying grace) as the decisive “old self put off” moment, with ongoing sanctification through sacramental life and cooperative growth in virtue. |
| Orthodox | Theosis — progressive, lifelong transformation/deification through grace and ascetic synergy; “new self” integrated into an ongoing doctrine of transformation into the divine likeness. |
| Jewish | Teshuvah (repentance/turning) is the closest analogue — a real, repeatable moral-spiritual turning back to covenant faithfulness — but without an ontological “new self” claim tied to union with a risen Messiah. |
| Islamic | Tazkiyat al-nafs (purification of the soul) through worship, remembrance (dhikr), and moral effort is a significant analogue, but is fundamentally self-effort-driven (with God’s help/tawfiq), not a grace-given new creation received passively by faith as in Ephesians 2:10/4:24. |
| Hindu | Transformation of consciousness through spiritual discipline (sadhana) toward realizing one’s true nature (atman) is the nearest analogue, but Vedantic-influenced strands hold the true self as ALREADY divine/eternal and merely obscured — to be UNCOVERED, not created anew — a fundamentally different anthropology. |
| Bengali dominant traditions | The strongest interference risk is precisely this atman-uncovering model in Bengali Hindu devotional/Vedantic-influenced popular piety, alongside the self-effort tazkiyah model in Bengali Muslim piety; পুরাতন মানুষ/নতুন মানুষ must be anchored to the grace-given, once-for-all creation language of 2:10 and 4:24 (সৃষ্টি), never heard as either uncovering a pre-existent true self or a self-achieved moral-purification project. |
| Buddhist | Transformation of mind through the Eightfold Path toward the extinguishing of the self (anatta) — a process-oriented, self-effort model aimed at a radically different goal (no permanent self at all) than Ephesians’ renewed, restored personal identity in Christ. |
| Secular | Likely read through modern self-improvement/psychological-identity-change frameworks (habit change, therapy, “becoming your best self”), losing the specifically Christ-given, Spirit-wrought, moral-relational dimension. |
Agreement: Nearly universal recognition that human beings can and should undergo genuine moral-spiritual transformation. Divergence: Grace-given new creation (Ephesians) vs. uncovering a pre-existent true self (Hindu Vedantic) vs. self-effort purification (Islamic tazkiyah, Buddhist path) vs. therapeutic self-improvement (secular). Misunderstandings to avoid: নতুন মানুষ must never be presented as an uncovering of innate divinity nor as an achievement of disciplined self-effort. Sensitive terminology: পুরাতন মানুষ / নতুন মানুষ, মনের নবীকরণ, সৃষ্টি.
Summary: Cross-Cutting Sensitive Terminology Requiring Consistent Handling
| Bengali Term | Doctrine(s) | Primary Collision Risk |
|---|---|---|
| অনুগ্রহ | Salvation by Grace | Bhakti-style prasad; pir barakah |
| কর্ম / সৎকর্ম | Salvation by Grace; New Creation | Karma-merit accounting; weighed-deeds soteriology |
| পূর্বনির্ধারণ | Election and Predestination | Taqdir fatalism; bhagya/niyoti |
| নিগূঢ়তত্ত্ব | Mystery of Christ Revealed | Tantric/pir esoteric initiate-knowledge |
| শক্তি (forbidden throughout) | Power of God; Spiritual Warfare | Shakta goddess-power association |
| ঈশ্বরের সম্পূর্ণ যুদ্ধসজ্জা | Spiritual Warfare | Taveez / tantric protective amulet |
| বশীভূত হওয়া | Household Codes | Pre-existing patriarchal norms (Hindu joint-family, Islamic qiwamah) |
| নতুন মানুষ / পুরাতন মানুষ | Walking in Newness of Life | Atman-uncovering; tazkiyah self-effort |
| উদ্ধার | Redemption | Moksha/rebirth-liberation |
| আত্মিক বর | Gifts for Building Up the Church | Siddhi (self-attained); boon-for-devotion exchange |
This document must be read alongside analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md, assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json, assets/bible_term_registry.json, and assets/translation_memory.json. All terminology choices recorded here are consistent with, and do not override, those baseline artifacts.