Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — 2 Timothy (English → Filipino)
This document surveys how the doctrines identified in analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md are interpreted across major religious and secular traditions, with a dedicated column for the traditions dominant in the Filipino destination context (majority Catholic, sizeable Protestant/evangelical, Iglesia ni Cristo and other independent/home-grown movements, and residual folk-religious practice). Its purpose is to flag agreement, divergence, likely misunderstandings, and sensitive terminology before Phase 2 translation begins, so that translator notes and contextual framing (per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md) can be attached at the correct points.
This document does not contradict the baseline Romans comparative theology; where doctrines overlap with Romans (Grace, Faith, Resurrection, Lordship of Christ), the same cross-tradition observations and Filipino-specific guards apply, extended here with 2 Timothy-specific passages.
Part A — The Seven Core Curriculum Doctrines
A1. Inspiration and Sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16–17) — Critical
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is God-breathed and fully sufficient for doctrine, correction, and equipping; no additional binding authority is needed. |
| Catholic | Affirms inspiration but holds Scripture and Sacred Tradition/Magisterium as a jointly authoritative rule of faith (a “two-source” model); 3:16–17 is read as Scripture’s sufficiency for its stated purposes, not sufficiency to the exclusion of the Church’s teaching authority. |
| Orthodox | Similar to Catholic: Scripture is inspired and central but interpreted within, and inseparable from, the living tradition of the Church and the Fathers. |
| Jewish | Affirms divine inspiration of the Tanakh; the specific NT claim (Paul writing of “all Scripture” including, by extension, apostolic writings) is outside Jewish canon and not affirmed. |
| Islamic | Holds the Qur’an as the final, uncorrupted revelation, superseding and correcting earlier scriptures (including the Torah and Gospel, believed by Muslims to have been altered); does not accept 2 Timothy’s specific claim of Scripture’s sufficiency for the Christian canon as it stands. |
| Hindu | No single fixed canon functions this way; authority is distributed across śruti/smṛti texts, guru lineages, and living oral tradition — a fundamentally different model of textual authority. |
| Filipino Context | Majority folk-Catholic piety often functions with an effective third source alongside Scripture and Magisterium: local devotional practice (novenas, fiesta traditions, reputed apparitions). Protestant/evangelical and Iglesia ni Cristo communities affirm strong scriptural sufficiency claims, though INC pairs this with an exclusivist ecclesiology regarding correct interpretation. |
| Buddhist | Authority rests in the Buddha’s teaching (Dharma) as preserved across various canons (Pali, Mahayana sutras), understood as a path to be tested experientially rather than a uniquely inspired, propositionally binding revelation. |
| Secular | Treats 2 Timothy as a historical religious document reflecting the concerns of an early Christian community establishing textual authority; “God-breathed” is read as a rhetorical/theological claim, not a verifiable property of the text. |
Agreement areas: Nearly all traditions affirm that some authoritative text or teaching lineage is needed for religious formation; the general value of sacred writing for moral and spiritual instruction is broadly shared. Divergence areas: The exclusivity and sufficiency claim (Scripture alone, needing no supplementary authoritative source) is the central fault line, chiefly with Catholic/Orthodox two-source models and with non-Christian traditions’ entirely different canons or authority structures. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: The Filipino rendering must not suggest Scripture is “one input among several” for the believer’s formation, nor may it imply Scripture requires supplementation from Church teaching, apparition-based revelation, or folk devotional tradition to be adequate. Sensitive terminology: kinasihan ng Diyos (God-breathed) must always carry a teaching note anchoring uniqueness/sufficiency to Scripture; Kasulatan (Scripture) should not be confused with Tradisyon (Tradition) in translator commentary.
A2. Perseverance under Suffering (1:8; 2:3; 2:9–12; 3:10–12; 4:5) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Suffering for the gospel is expected and purposeful, sustained by grace and hope of future glory; endurance is evidence of, not a means to, genuine faith. |
| Catholic | Affirms redemptive value in suffering, often framed through union with Christ’s own suffering (cf. “offering up” one’s suffering), and through the example of martyrs and canonized saints. |
| Orthodox | Strong ascetic tradition; suffering and self-denial are integrated into theosis (union with God) through disciplined spiritual struggle. |
| Jewish | Suffering (especially communal/historical suffering) is often framed covenantally — tested faithfulness, exile-and-return patterns — rather than tied to Christ’s specific example. |
| Islamic | Trials (bala) are understood as tests from Allah requiring patient endurance (sabr), rewarded in the afterlife; framework of submission rather than union with a suffering Messiah. |
| Hindu | Suffering is frequently explained through karma across lifetimes; endurance may be framed as working through karmic consequence rather than persecution for a specific truth-claim. |
| Filipino Context | Deep cultural resonance with redemptive suffering (Lenten Holy Week penitensya, self-flagellation and crucifixion re-enactments in some regions) risks reframing 2 Timothy’s suffering as merit-earning penance; must be distinguished from the baseline’s bahala na fatalistic-resignation risk as well. |
| Buddhist | Suffering (dukkha) is a universal diagnosis to be transcended through detachment and the Eightfold Path, not endured for the sake of a message to be proclaimed. |
| Secular | Reads perseverance psychologically — resilience, meaning-making under adversity — without requiring a transcendent reward or divine calling behind it. |
Agreement areas: Broad cross-tradition affirmation that suffering can be spiritually meaningful and is not simply to be avoided at any cost. Divergence areas: Whether suffering has any merit-earning function (Catholic penitential and some folk-Catholic framing) versus being the consequence of faithful gospel proclamation sustained by grace already given (Pauline framing). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not suggest that enduring hardship itself earns favor with God or contributes to justification; must not collapse into passive, fatalistic bahala na resignation lacking a personal, purposive God. Sensitive terminology: magtiis ng hirap must be rendered identically at every occurrence and kept distinct from penitensya (penitential suffering) vocabulary.
A3. Guarding Sound Doctrine (1:12–14; 2:2; 2:14–17; 4:3) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Sound doctrine is Scripture-derived teaching to be actively defended against error, often church-confession-anchored (creeds, confessions) but always subordinate to Scripture. |
| Catholic | Doctrinal guardianship is primarily the Magisterium’s role, exercised through apostolic succession and defined dogma; individual believers “guard” doctrine chiefly by fidelity to Church teaching. |
| Orthodox | Guarding doctrine is preserving the unchanging deposit of faith received from the Apostles through unbroken liturgical and patristic tradition. |
| Jewish | Analogous concept in halakhic fidelity and the guarding of Torah interpretation through rabbinic tradition and lineage of teachers. |
| Islamic | Parallel in the careful preservation of hadith authenticity chains (isnad) and guarding against innovation (bid’ah) in doctrine and practice. |
| Hindu | Guru-disciple lineages (guru-parampara) function as the guarding mechanism for correct teaching transmission, rather than a fixed propositional doctrinal core. |
| Filipino Context | Strong deference to clergy/institutional authority (Catholic hierarchy, INC’s centralized leadership) as the presumed guardians of correct teaching; risk of readers assuming “guarding doctrine” is a clergy-only task rather than every believer’s (per 2:2’s “faithful men” chain) responsibility. |
| Buddhist | Preservation of correct Dharma teaching through monastic lineage and council-established canon, guarding against misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teaching. |
| Secular | Reframes as the sociological process of maintaining institutional orthodoxy/identity boundaries within a religious community, without normative weight attached to “truth.” |
Agreement areas: Every tradition surveyed has some structure for guarding transmitted teaching against corruption or drift. Divergence areas: Who guards doctrine (an ordained hierarchy vs. every believer in a transmission chain) and what the final court of appeal is (Scripture alone vs. Scripture-plus-Tradition vs. an ongoing lineage). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not suggest doctrinal guardianship belongs exclusively to clergy; 2:2’s chain (Paul→Timothy→faithful men→others) is explicitly non-hierarchical in scope. Sensitive terminology: malusog na aral (sound doctrine) and ganggrena (gangrene) must retain the organic health/disease pairing; ipinagkatiwala (entrusted deposit) must not be rendered as belonging to an institution rather than to faithful individuals.
A4. Faithful Transmission of the Gospel (1:5; 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Transmission occurs primarily through preaching, teaching, and household discipleship; every believer is a potential link in the chain (2:2). |
| Catholic | Transmission is formally channeled through apostolic succession and sacramental ordination alongside catechetical family formation. |
| Orthodox | Emphasizes unbroken liturgical and patristic transmission alongside family/household catechesis. |
| Jewish | Strong parallel in the mesorah (chain of tradition) and the explicit household transmission command of Deuteronomy 6 (“teach them to your children”). |
| Islamic | Parallel in the transmission of the Qur’an and hadith through memorization and verified chains of narrators across generations. |
| Hindu | Guru-to-disciple oral transmission (shruti tradition) across generations, often within specific lineages rather than general household teaching. |
| Filipino Context | Strong cultural value placed on family-based religious formation (pamilya as the first catechist) resonates naturally with Lois→Eunice→Timothy (1:5); risk is assuming transmission is complete once ritually performed (baptism, confirmation) rather than requiring genuine, personally appropriated faith at each link. |
| Buddhist | Dharma transmission through ordained lineages and, in lay contexts, parental example and temple instruction. |
| Secular | Views this as a sociological phenomenon of cultural/religious identity transmission across generations, without normative truth-claims attached. |
Agreement areas: Nearly universal affirmation of the family/household as a primary vehicle of religious transmission. Divergence areas: Whether transmission requires genuine personal faith at each generation (Pauline emphasis, 1:5’s “I am sure lives in you also”) versus ritual/institutional continuity being sufficient in itself. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not suggest that being raised in a Christian household or receiving sacraments guarantees the “sincere faith” (anypokritos pistis) Paul commends in Timothy specifically. Sensitive terminology: ipagkatiwala must be used consistently across 1:12/1:14/2:2/3:14 as one connected word family.
A5. The Charge to Preach the Word (4:1–2; 4:5) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | The charge is given to every minister of the Word (and, in some traditions, to every believer as personal witness); public, authoritative proclamation of Scripture is central to worship. |
| Catholic | Preaching (the homily) is formally reserved to ordained clergy within the Mass; lay evangelization exists but institutional proclamation is clergy-centered. |
| Orthodox | Similar clergy-centered homiletic structure within the Divine Liturgy. |
| Jewish | Parallel in the rabbi’s/teacher’s role expounding Torah, though the specific “herald” (kēryx) image of urgent, solemn public proclamation is distinctively Pauline/apostolic. |
| Islamic | Parallel in the khatib’s Friday sermon (khutbah) and the broader concept of da’wah (inviting others to the faith), both carrying solemn, public weight. |
| Hindu | No single parallel structure; teaching authority is more diffusely located across gurus, temple priests, and textual scholars. |
| Filipino Context | Preaching is strongly associated with ordained clergy/pastors in both Catholic and most Protestant settings; INC has a distinctive centralized preaching structure. Risk: rendering kēryssō too generically could blur it with the widely practiced lay activity of patotoo (personal testimony-sharing), losing the text’s authoritative, non-optional charge. |
| Buddhist | Parallel in Dharma talks given by monks/teachers, generally invitational rather than a solemn charge under threat of divine accountability. |
| Secular | Views the charge as rhetorical urgency appropriate to the ancient letter’s pastoral-succession concerns, without normative force for a modern reader. |
Agreement areas: Broad affirmation that authoritative public teaching requires a recognized role or commissioning, not mere personal opinion-sharing. Divergence areas: Whether this charge is restricted to an ordained office or extends functionally to every gospel-committed believer (as 2 Timothy’s own transmission chain in 2:2 suggests). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not soften the solemn, sworn, judgment-anchored charge (4:1, diamartyromai) into casual encouragement, nor let it collapse into the lay patotoo register. Sensitive terminology: ipangaral (proclaim) vs. patotoo (testify) must be kept distinct in translator commentary.
A6. Apostasy and False Teachers in the Last Days (3:1–9; 3:13; 4:3–4; 4:10; 4:16) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | ”Last days” names the entire church age between Christ’s first and second comings, characterized by ongoing doctrinal drift and false teaching to be resisted, not a specific calculable countdown. |
| Catholic | Similarly reads this as the present age’s general pattern, though historically some strands have also linked it to specific eschatological schemas and antichrist figures. |
| Orthodox | Emphasizes vigilant discernment (nepsis) against heretical teaching across the whole present age, within a strongly ecclesial framework for detecting error. |
| Jewish | No direct parallel to this specific NT eschatological framework; Jewish “end of days” (acharit ha-yamim) expectation centers on messianic restoration, not a warning against false teachers within an already-established messianic community. |
| Islamic | Strong parallel concern with end-times deception (the Dajjal/false messiah figure, signs of the Hour) and warnings against false teachers/innovators (bid’ah), though tied to a different prophetic framework. |
| Hindu | Some traditions hold cyclical yuga theory (moral decline through ages, culminating in Kali Yuga), a structurally different (cyclical, not linear-terminal) decline narrative. |
| Filipino Context | The Philippines has a documented history of home-grown millennialist and prophecy-focused new religious movements built around date-setting and charismatic prophetic figures (e.g., various 20th-century apocalyptic sects); “mga huling araw” risks being read through this lens as an imminent countdown rather than the whole church age’s characteristic pattern. |
| Buddhist | Some traditions (e.g., the concept of the Dharma’s gradual decline, mappō in Japanese Buddhism) parallel decline narratives but without a personal false-teacher-versus-truth confrontation of this kind. |
| Secular | Reads apocalyptic/decline rhetoric as a common feature of minority religious movements under social pressure, a sociological rather than predictive claim. |
Agreement areas: Widespread cross-tradition concern about doctrinal corruption, false teachers, and end-time deception in some form. Divergence areas: Linear terminal decline (Christian, Islamic) versus cyclical decline (Hindu, some Buddhist schools); calculable countdown versus an open-ended present-age characterization. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not encourage date-setting or countdown speculation; must not single out one Filipino Christian tradition’s practices as the exclusive referent of “form of godliness without power” — the warning applies evenhandedly. Sensitive terminology: mythos → gawa-gawang kwento (not alamat, which carries positive folklore associations); mga huling araw requires a teaching note on present-age scope.
A7. Assurance of Reward (2:5; 4:7–8) — High
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Reward is a gracious bonus given to the already-saved for faithful service, entirely distinct from the gift of salvation itself, which is by grace through faith alone. |
| Catholic | Holds a doctrine of merit in which grace-enabled good works genuinely contribute to one’s ultimate reward, integrated with the broader sacramental economy of salvation. |
| Orthodox | Reward is framed within theosis — the ongoing, cooperative (synergistic) process of growing into union with God — rather than a separate future prize distinct from present transformation. |
| Jewish | Reward and merit (zechut) language is prominent in reward-for-Torah-observance frameworks, generally this-worldly and covenantal rather than tied to Christ’s return. |
| Islamic | Strong reward framework (ajr, thawab) for righteous deeds and endurance, weighed at final judgment, integral to the meritorious economy of salvation. |
| Hindu | Reward is embedded in karma — the accumulated fruit (karma-phala) of one’s actions across lifetimes — a structurally different (impersonal, causal) mechanism than a personal Judge’s gift. |
| Filipino Context | Contemporary usage of korona (crown) is dominated by beauty-pageant culture (Binibining Pilipinas, Miss Universe); the athletic victor’s-wreath background is largely unfamiliar and must be actively taught. Filipino Catholic merit theology (indulgences, votive offerings for favors) can also predispose readers to hear gagantimpalaan as a second, works-based track to standing before God. |
| Buddhist | No personal Judge or reward-giver; positive karmic outcomes accrue impersonally from skillful action, and the ultimate goal (liberation/nirvana) is the cessation of the reward-seeking cycle itself. |
| Secular | Reads reward language as motivational rhetoric for costly commitment, without an actual transcendent Judge or afterlife referent. |
Agreement areas: Broad affirmation that faithful/righteous living has some future consequence or recognition. Divergence areas: Whether reward is a gracious addition to an already-secured salvation (Protestant reading) or contributes causally to one’s ultimate standing (Catholic merit theology; Islamic and Jewish reward economies; Hindu/Buddhist karma). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: Must not let gagantimpalaan imply Timothy’s (or the reader’s) salvation depends on accumulated performance; the crown is Paul’s response to grace already at work in him, not its precondition. Sensitive terminology: korona requires explicit redirection from pageant imagery to the athletic wreath; matuwid na Hukom (righteous Judge) should be linked to God’s just character, not human merit calculation.
Part B — Supporting Doctrines (Cross-Tradition Notes)
The following eleven doctrines from doctrine_risk_registry.json support the seven core doctrines above. Full per-tradition tables are provided where a distinctive risk exists; otherwise notes are consolidated for efficiency, since several overlap directly with baseline Romans comparative theology (Grace, Faith, Resurrection, Lordship).
| Doctrine | Key Cross-Tradition Divergence | Filipino-Specific Note | Sensitive Terminology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grace (1:9; 2:1; 4:22) | Protestant: unmerited gift, basis of calling. Catholic/Orthodox: grace enables meritorious cooperation. Islamic: no direct parallel category (mercy/rahma is closer but not a Pauline “gift apart from works” concept). Hindu/Buddhist: no equivalent gift-apart-from-merit concept; both operate on cause-effect (karma) logic. | Must never be framed as utang na loob — grace sustaining Timothy’s endurance (2:1) is not repayment owed for the gift already given (1:9). | biyaya (per baseline; no substitution permitted). |
| Faith (1:5; 1:13; 2:18; 2:22; 3:10; 3:15; 4:7) | Protestant: personal trust in Christ as the sole instrument of justification. Catholic/Orthodox: faith formed by love (fides caritate formata), inseparable from works and sacramental life. Jewish: covenantal faithfulness (emunah) more than propositional belief. Islamic: iman includes belief plus submission (islam) as a unified whole. Hindu/Buddhist: closer to conviction/confidence (shraddha/saddha) in a teacher or path than exclusive trust in one unique mediator. | Faith “kept” through trial (4:7) must be read as persevering trust, not merely retained doctrinal assent. | pananampalataya (per baseline; object must remain Christ). |
| Divine Election and Perseverance (2:10) | Protestant (esp. Reformed): sovereign, unconditional election. Catholic/Orthodox: divine election harmonized with human cooperative freedom. Islamic: strong parallel in qadar (divine decree) though within a different covenantal framework. Hindu: no equivalent personal-election concept; outcomes tied to karma, not a personal choosing God. | Must never render as swerte/kapalaran (luck/fate); Paul endures suffering specifically “for the sake of the elect,” a purposive not fatalistic frame. | pagkahirang / hinirang (per baseline). |
| Resurrection of Christ (2:8; 2:18) | Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox: united in affirming bodily, historical resurrection; 2:18 corrects an early “already fully realized” over-spiritualized view — a live concern given some modern movements that spiritualize resurrection hope. Jewish: bodily resurrection affirmed by some streams (esp. traditional/Orthodox Judaism) but not tied to Jesus. Islamic: affirms a future bodily resurrection at judgment but denies Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection specifically. Hindu/Buddhist: rebirth/reincarnation frameworks are structurally different from a one-time, historical, bodily resurrection. | Already well-affirmed in Filipino Catholic Easter tradition; comparatively low risk, but 2:18’s named correction (against an over-spiritualized “already happened” view) must not be softened into an acceptable alternate reading. | pagkabuhay na mag-uli (per baseline). |
| Lordship and Saviorhood of Christ (1:2; 1:10; 2:7,19,22,24; 4:8,14,17-18,22) | Protestant: Christ’s Lordship/Saviorhood is exclusive and total. Catholic/Orthodox: affirmed doctrinally, but devotional practice often shares intercessory/mediating attention broadly with Mary and the saints. Jewish: rejects Jesus’s Lordship/Messiahship claim entirely. Islamic: honors Jesus (Isa) as a prophet, explicitly denies his divine Lordship/Sonship. Hindu: could potentially absorb “Lord” into a devotional framework alongside other deities (ishta-devata), risking a syncretistic misreading. | Guard against devotional dilution through Marian co-redemptrix language or saintly intercessors, per baseline caution on Panginoon. | Panginoon / Tagapagligtas (per baseline; exclusive application required). |
| Eternal Life and Incorruption (1:10) | Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox: shared hope of bodily immortality through Christ’s resurrection victory. Islamic: affirms eternal life in Paradise but not through Christ’s resurrection. Hindu/Buddhist: ultimate goal is liberation from rebirth (moksha/nirvana), not embodied incorruption. | Filipino Catholic folk piety includes devotion to reputed “incorrupt” (non-decaying) bodies of specific canonized saints; aphtharsia must be taught as every believer’s common hope, not a rare relic phenomenon. | kawalang-kasiraan (new term, High risk; requires teaching note). |
| God’s Faithfulness amid Human Weakness (2:11-13) | Protestant: classic assurance text — God’s faithfulness is unconditioned by human failure (short of final apostasy). Catholic/Orthodox: read within a framework where mortal sin can genuinely forfeit grace, requiring sacramental restoration. Islamic: Allah’s mercy toward the repentant sinner is a partial parallel, though within a different accountability structure (no atoning mediator). | Arneomai (willful denial) and apisteō (recoverable faithlessness) must never be merged into one Filipino verb — this is the passage’s central doctrinal distinction. | itatwa vs. di-tapat/mawalan ng pananampalataya (must remain visibly distinct). |
| True Godliness versus Hollow Religiosity (3:1-5) | Protestant: warns against nominal/ritual religion lacking regenerating power, applicable within Protestantism itself. Catholic/Orthodox: affirms the same warning against merely external observance devoid of interior conversion. Islamic: parallel concern about empty ritualism without sincere intention (niyyah). Buddhist: parallel concern about ritual without genuine insight/practice. | Must apply evenhandedly across Filipino denominational lines (Catholic Mass attendance, Protestant church attendance, INC membership) rather than singling out one tradition’s outward practices. | pagkamaka-Diyos / anyo ng pagkamaka-Diyos (root deliberately distinct from banal). |
| Repentance and Restoration (2:24-26) | Protestant: repentance as inward reorientation producing observable fruit, distinct from sacramental absolution. Catholic/Orthodox: formal sacrament of confession/absolution as the ordinary channel of restoration. Islamic: tawbah (repentance) as sincere turning back to Allah, without a mediating sacramental structure. Hindu/Buddhist: closer to purification/right-understanding practices than a relational turning back to a personal offended God. | Must anchor to genuine inward change, not ritual confession alone — echoing baseline’s caution on kasalanan (sin) as relational offense. | pagsisisi; bitag ng diyablo kept distinct from folk-spirit taxonomy (aswang, etc.). |
| Spiritual Gifts and Ministry Empowerment (1:6-7) | Protestant (esp. Pentecostal/charismatic streams, strong in the Philippines): gifts actively exercised in ongoing ministry. Catholic/Orthodox: gifts affirmed but often channeled through sacramental/ordained structures. Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist: no equivalent Spirit-gift category tied to a personal Holy Spirit. | Must never be framed as anting-anting; hand-laying (1:6) is ministerial commissioning, not a folk-healing rite associated with albularyo/faith healers. | kaloob; pagpapatong ng kamay. |
| Conscience and Ministerial Integrity (1:3) | Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox: conscience as a God-accountable moral faculty, informed and correctable by revelation. Islamic: parallel in the accountable soul (nafs) before Allah. Hindu/Buddhist: closer to karmic/ethical self-monitoring than accountability to a personal God. Secular: conscience as internalized social/psychological conditioning, with no transcendent referent. | Budhi is well understood in Filipino usage but risks being read as purely subjective feeling rather than a morally accountable faculty before God. | budhi. |
Cross-Cutting Sensitive Terminology Summary
| Filipino Term | Concept | Must Never Be Confused With |
|---|---|---|
| kinasihan ng Diyos | God-breathed (Scripture) | Sacred Tradition/Magisterium as an equal-authority source |
| malusog na aral / ganggrena | sound doctrine / gangrene | generic “tamang aral” (correct teaching), which loses the health/disease imagery |
| ipinagkatiwala / ipagkatiwala | entrusted deposit / commit into care | a vague, ownerless “message” |
| magtiis ng hirap | suffer hardship for the gospel | bahala na fatalistic resignation; Lenten penitensya merit-earning |
| itatwa | willful denial (apostasy) | di-tapat/faithlessness (recoverable weakness) — must stay visibly distinct |
| gawa-gawang kwento | myths/fables | alamat (beloved national folklore) |
| mga huling araw | the last days | a calculable end-time countdown |
| korona | victor’s crown/reward | beauty-pageant crowning culture |
| kaloob | spiritual gift | anting-anting (folk amulet) |
| kawalang-kasiraan | incorruption (resurrection hope) | reputed “incorrupt” saintly relics |
| pagkamaka-Diyos | godliness | banal root (avoided here to prevent compounding the baseline’s mga banal collision) |
This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package’s comparative theology conventions. See analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md for the full doctrine matrix and analysis/08_core_glossary.md for term-level rationale.