Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — 2 Corinthians
Purpose
For each of the eight curriculum doctrines, this document surveys how the
concept is understood (or has no real analogue) across major world
religious/philosophical traditions and secular thought, with a dedicated
column for the traditions dominant in the Mandarin-speaking cultural sphere
(Confucianism and Chinese folk religion/Daoism). This grounds the risk tiers
and forbidden-substitution rules already fixed in the Language Package and
doctrine_risk_registry.json, and flags misunderstandings translators must
not invite.
Reading the tables: “Agrees” = substantially compatible with the Protestant/evangelical reading this curriculum teaches; “Diverges” = a distinct or partly incompatible framework; “No direct analogue” = the tradition has no equivalent category, which is itself a translation risk (readers may import a different nearby concept by default).
1. Reconciliation with God (与神和好)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; 2:14-16
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | God unilaterally reconciles sinners to himself through Christ’s death; humans respond by receiving, not achieving, reconciliation (5:18-19). | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Affirms God’s initiative in Christ; also emphasizes the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) as the ordinary means by which post-baptismal sin is repeatedly addressed. | Agrees on divine initiative; diverges on ongoing sacramental mediation of reconciliation for sin committed after conversion. |
| Orthodox | Reconciliation as part of theosis — restored communion with God that progressively heals human nature; emphasizes cosmic/ontological healing alongside forensic language. | Agrees on divine initiative; frames the result more ontologically (healing of nature) than the curriculum’s forensic/relational emphasis. |
| Jewish | No Christological reconciliation category; atonement (kapparah) and repentance (teshuvah) restore the covenant relationship through repentance, prayer, and (historically) sacrifice — a process in which the human party actively returns. | Diverges: human turning is the initiating/active element, not a response to an already-completed unilateral act. |
| Islamic | Allah forgives directly upon sincere repentance (tawbah); no mediator or substitutionary reconciler is needed or theologically permissible. | Diverges sharply: rejects any mediatorial reconciler-figure; reconciliation is a direct, unmediated act of divine mercy toward the repentant. |
| Hindu | No equivalent of personal estrangement-and-reconciliation with a single Creator; karma and dharma govern one’s standing within the cosmic order, addressed through right action, devotion, or knowledge across (often many) lifetimes. | No direct analogue; risk of readers mapping this onto a karma-adjustment framework. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | 和 (harmony) is a supreme social-cosmic value, restored between estranged parties through mutual ritual propriety (礼), mutual concession, and reciprocal effort — see 和好, the very word chosen for this doctrine. | High collision risk: Confucian 和好 is achieved by both parties’ effort; must be explicitly taught as one-directional, grace-based, and costly to God alone. |
| Buddhist | No personal God to be reconciled with; the operative categories are ignorance, craving, and the cessation of suffering (nirvana) through the Eightfold Path — an impersonal process, not an interpersonal restoration. | No direct analogue; risk of collapsing “reconciliation” into “release from suffering” (cf. baseline forbidden 解脱). |
| Secular | ”Reconciliation” language is retained only metaphorically (e.g., self-acceptance, resolving inner conflict, restoring human relationships); no transcendent reconciler is in view. | Diverges: strips the doctrine of its vertical (God-ward) dimension entirely. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that reconciliation is a negotiated peace between two morally implicated equals (the Confucian 和好 default reading), or that it is a this-life achievement of inner harmony (the secular/Buddhist drift). Sensitive terminology: 和好 (mandated per translation memory) always requires an accompanying clarifying gloss in teaching materials; avoid 和解 (legal/political settlement) and 修好 (still mutual-fault flavored) as substitutes.
2. New Creation in Christ (在基督里的新造)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 5:17; 5:16
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | A definitive, God-wrought re-creation of the believer’s identity and moral orientation, entered by faith union with Christ; “old things passed away” is a decisive, once-for-all change. | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Affirms new creation as effected at baptism (regeneration) and nurtured through the sacramental life; ongoing cooperation with grace shapes its outworking. | Agrees on the divine-initiative core; adds an ongoing sacramental-cooperative dimension. |
| Orthodox | New creation as the beginning of theosis — participation in divine life/energies, oriented toward the eschatological renewal of the whole cosmos, not only the individual. | Agrees on radical newness; frames scope more cosmically. |
| Jewish | No individual “new creation” category; renewal is corporate and eschatological — Israel’s restoration and the age to come (olam ha-ba), not a present transformation of an individual’s inner nature. | Diverges: no present, individual, faith-entered new-creation event. |
| Islamic | No parallel doctrine; moral renewal comes through submission (islam) and disciplined practice; no ontological remaking of the person is taught. | No direct analogue. |
| Hindu | The nearest analogue is a change of consciousness or liberation of the true self (atman) from ignorance — but this is self-realization of what already eternally is, not a new thing God creates. | Diverges: not creation of something new but realization/uncovering of the eternal. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Neo-Confucian self-cultivation (修身/成圣) transforms moral character through sustained personal discipline toward sagehood; Daoist internal alchemy (内丹) speaks of transforming the practitioner’s very being — closest lexical parallel is 脱胎换骨 (“changing the very bones,” a total, technique-achieved transformation). | Critical collision risk: 脱胎换骨 is explicitly forbidden (per translation memory); must not present new creation as an internally-generated attainment through practice or technique. |
| Buddhist | No individual creation-event; the goal is extinguishing the illusion of a fixed self (anatta) altogether through the Eightfold Path — the opposite trajectory from being remade into a stable new identity “in Christ.” | Diverges fundamentally: Buddhist goal dissolves selfhood; Christian doctrine establishes a renewed, stable identity in relationship with Christ. |
| Secular | ”Personal transformation,” “reinvention,” or “growth” language is available but locates the agency entirely within the individual (self-help framing), with no transcendent re-creating agent. | Diverges: removes the doctrine’s essential claim that God, not the self, is the one who makes new. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that new creation is a self-cultivated attainment (Confucian/Daoist reading) or a dissolving of selfhood (Buddhist reading), rather than God’s decisive act received through union with Christ. Sensitive terminology: never use 脱胎换骨; always retain 在基督里 as the explicit ground of the change.
3. Suffering and Comfort in Ministry (事奉中的患难与安慰)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; 4:7-18; 6:4-10; 11:23-29; 12:9-10
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Suffering endured for the gospel is meaningful participation in Christ’s sufferings, purposed for comfort and ministry to others; God is the “Father of all comfort.” | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Strong tradition of “offering up” suffering in union with Christ’s passion (redemptive suffering), including for others’ benefit; resonates closely with Paul’s language. | Close agreement; some emphasis differences regarding suffering’s meritorious/expiatory value for oneself or others. |
| Orthodox | Suffering as ascetic participation in Christ’s kenosis and the Cross, integral to theosis; martyrdom and monastic asceticism are paradigmatic. | Close agreement; frames suffering more explicitly within ascetic practice. |
| Jewish | Suffering is often interpreted through covenant faithfulness amid exile/persecution, or as chastisement calling Israel to repentance; the Book of Job wrestles with suffering’s meaning without a fixed doctrine of “comfort in ministry.” | Partial agreement on meaningful suffering within covenant relationship; no direct “ministry-suffering” category. |
| Islamic | Suffering (bala) is a test (fitna) from Allah, met with patience (sabr); reward comes for endurance, but the framework is individual-piety-focused rather than gospel-ministry-focused. | Partial agreement on purposeful suffering; diverges on suffering as specifically ministry-for-others. |
| Hindu | Suffering is largely explained through karma — the outworking of past actions across lifetimes; endurance may generate merit affecting future rebirth. | Diverges: suffering is here a personal-karmic mechanism, not participation in a Savior’s sufferings for others’ benefit. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Folk religion commonly reads misfortune through 报应 (karmic retribution) tied to one’s own or ancestors’ deeds; Confucian tradition prizes stoic endurance (忍) for social duty and reputation, not gospel proclamation. | High collision risk: 患难 must be explicitly decoupled from 报应; endurance must be framed as participatory and others-directed, not fate- or merit-related. |
| Buddhist | Suffering (dukkha) is a universal, structural feature of unenlightened existence, to be transcended through detachment and the Eightfold Path, not endured for others’ comfort. | Diverges: goal is escaping suffering’s grip through detachment, not enduring it purposefully in ministry. |
| Secular | Suffering may be framed as random, meaningless, or an occasion for resilience/psychological growth (post-traumatic growth); no transcendent comforter is assumed. | Diverges: removes the doctrine’s claim of a personal God who comforts specifically so that comfort can be passed on. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that hardship signals divine displeasure or bad karma (folk-religious default), or that endurance is a private virtue disconnected from ministry to others. Sensitive terminology: 患难 (affliction) and 安慰 (comfort) must be taught together as a purposeful pair; avoid any phrasing suggesting suffering is deserved consequence.
4. The New Covenant versus the Old (新约与旧约的对比)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 3:1-18
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | The Mosaic covenant (letter, 字句) is fading in glory and ultimately fulfilled/superseded by the New Covenant (Spirit-given life, 精意), inaugurated by Christ. | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Affirms covenant fulfillment in Christ; also emphasizes continuity through the Church as the New Israel and the sacramental economy as the New Covenant’s ongoing administration. | Agrees on fulfillment; adds ecclesial-sacramental continuity emphasis. |
| Orthodox | Similar fulfillment structure; strong liturgical emphasis on the New Covenant realized in the Eucharist and the life of the Church. | Agrees on fulfillment; liturgical/sacramental framing emphasized. |
| Jewish | The Mosaic covenant (Torah) remains in force and is not superseded; Jewish tradition does recognize a future “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31) but does not identify it with Christ’s work. | Diverges significantly: rejects the claim that the Mosaic covenant’s authority has faded or been fulfilled in Jesus. |
| Islamic | No covenant-succession framework of this kind; the Qur’an is regarded as the final, corrective revelation superseding prior scriptures, on different theological grounds entirely. | No direct analogue; different supersession logic. |
| Hindu | No covenant concept; dharma and scriptural authority (śruti/smṛti) operate cyclically and are not organized as sequential covenants with a personal God. | No direct analogue. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | No indigenous covenant concept; classical Chinese historiography favors a cyclical dynastic pattern (治乱循环, order-chaos-order) rather than a linear old-to-new covenant fulfillment. | High collision risk (already flagged in baseline): readers may intuitively map “old/new” onto a recurring cycle rather than a one-time historical fulfillment; 新约/旧约 also risk being read as mere Bible-section labels. |
| Buddhist | No covenant concept; the Dharma is timeless teaching rediscovered by successive Buddhas, not a relational bond superseded by a later one. | No direct analogue. |
| Secular | ”Old vs. new” may be read as an evolution of religious/ethical ideas over time (progressive religious history) without any binding, personal, divinely-initiated bond in view. | Diverges: strips the relational, divinely-initiated covenant structure entirely. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that “old covenant” vs. “new covenant” is simply “Old Testament book” vs. “New Testament book,” or that the contrast fits a cyclical rise-and-fall historical pattern. Sensitive terminology: 精意 (3:6) must never be rendered/read as 圣灵; always disambiguate 新约/旧约 from the identically-written Testament-collection names.
5. Sincerity and Apostolic Authority (真诚与使徒的权柄)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2:17; 3:1; 4:2; 5:11-12; 10:12-18
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Genuine ministry authority is authenticated by Spirit-given transparency of motive before God and the church, not self-promotion or profiteering; conscience is accountable to a personal God. | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Apostolic authority is also institutionally located in apostolic succession and the magisterium; personal sincerity is expected but authority itself has an additional structural guarantee. | Agrees on the importance of sincerity; adds an institutional-succession dimension not present in Paul’s argument here. |
| Orthodox | Similar institutional-succession emphasis (apostolic succession through bishops), combined with personal spiritual integrity (nepsis, watchfulness of the heart). | Agrees on personal integrity; adds institutional-succession dimension. |
| Jewish | Rabbinic authority rests on scholarly lineage/ordination (semikhah) and demonstrated Torah mastery, not primarily on claims of direct commissioning by God as in apostleship. | Diverges: authority is credentialed through study/lineage, not through a personal divine call authenticated by suffering and sincerity. |
| Islamic | Authority (particularly prophetic authority, sealed in Muhammad) is unrepeatable after the Prophet; subsequent religious authority rests on scholarly transmission (ijazah) and community consensus (ijma), not ongoing apostleship. | Diverges: no ongoing category of apostle-like commissioned authority. |
| Hindu | Spiritual authority is often located in a guru-disciple lineage (guru-parampara), authenticated by the guru’s realization and the disciple’s devotion. | Diverges: authority verified by demonstrated realization/lineage, not sincerity under divine judgment. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Moral authority in Confucian tradition rests on the inner sincerity (诚) of the noble person (君子) cultivated through self-discipline, and conscience is often understood via the Mencian doctrine of an innately good heart-mind (良知/性善) that is self-sufficiently reliable. | High collision risk: 良心 risks being read as this self-sufficient innate-good-heart, losing the biblical sense of a conscience accountable to an external, personal Judge (cf. 5:10-11). |
| Buddhist | Authority of a teacher (particularly in Chan/Zen lineages) is authenticated through mind-to-mind transmission and demonstrated enlightenment, not through suffering-as-credential or God-accountable sincerity. | Diverges: different authentication logic (attainment/transmission vs. God-accountable transparency). |
| Secular | Leadership legitimacy is typically evaluated by competence, transparency, and accountability to institutions or the public — a “conscience” in the purely psychological/social sense, without reference to a divine Judge. | Partial overlap on “transparency” language; diverges by removing the theological ground (God as final judge of motive). |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that conscience (良心) is a self-sufficient innate moral compass requiring no outside accountability, or that sincerity is mere social politeness/etiquette. Sensitive terminology: 真诚 must be anchored to God-directed accountability in context; avoid glosses that reduce it to interpersonal courtesy.
6. Generosity and Grace in Giving (施与中的恩典与慷慨)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Giving is a grace-response overflow, not a merit transaction; modeled on Christ’s self-impoverishment; God supplies what is given as an act of grace working through the giver. | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Strong almsgiving tradition; giving is meritorious in the sense of cooperating with grace and contributing to one’s sanctification, though never divorced from grace’s priority. | Broad agreement; some difference in how “merit” language is used regarding giving’s spiritual benefit to the giver. |
| Orthodox | Almsgiving as one of the core ascetic disciplines (alongside prayer and fasting), expressing love and participating in divine philanthropy. | Broad agreement; ascetic-discipline framing added. |
| Jewish | Tzedakah (charitable giving) is a covenantal obligation of righteousness/justice, not merely voluntary generosity — one of the most highly developed giving-ethics traditions, but structured as duty rather than grace-overflow. | Partial overlap on generosity’s importance; diverges on the grace-vs-obligation framing. |
| Islamic | Zakat is an obligatory pillar of Islam (a fixed percentage of wealth), with sadaqah as additional voluntary giving; giving is fundamentally a duty that earns reward from Allah. | Diverges: giving is duty-and-reward structured, not grace-overflow structured. |
| Hindu | Dāna (giving) is a traditional virtue that generates merit (punya) affecting one’s karma and future circumstances/rebirth. | Diverges: giving functions within a merit-karma accounting system. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Folk Buddhist-influenced giving practice (e.g., temple donation boxes, 功德箱) is widely understood to generate transferable merit (功德) for the giver or their family; Confucian ethics also frames generosity (义/仁) as a virtue-duty within social relationships. | Critical collision risk (highest-stakes doctrine in the curriculum for this collision): giving must be explicitly taught as grace-response, never as merit-generating; avoid any framing resembling 功德箱-style transactional donation. |
| Buddhist | Dāna is a foundational practice generating merit (功德) that benefits the giver’s karma; monastic giving-and-receiving is a structured merit exchange. | Diverges directly: this is precisely the merit-transaction framework the doctrine must avoid invoking. |
| Secular | Generosity is framed as altruism, social good, or enlightened self-interest (reputational/psychological benefit), without reference to grace or God. | Diverges: removes the theological grounding (grace received, therefore given) entirely. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that giving generates merit or spiritual credit for the giver (功德), or that giving is primarily a duty discharged rather than a grace overflow. Sensitive terminology: always pair 恩典/甘心乐意 language with explicit denial of merit-accounting; avoid metaphors resembling temple donation boxes.
7. Power in Weakness (在软弱中显出的能力)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 11:30; 12:1-10
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | God’s power is most clearly displayed through, not despite, human weakness and limitation, so that glory belongs to God alone (“my grace is sufficient for you”). | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Resonant tradition of “little way” spirituality (e.g., St. Thérèse) and redemptive weakness/suffering; strong affinity with this doctrine. | Close agreement. |
| Orthodox | Kenotic theology (Christ’s self-emptying) and the ascetic embrace of humility/weakness as the path to theosis provide a close parallel. | Close agreement. |
| Jewish | Divine power working through the weak or unlikely (e.g., Gideon’s small army, David vs. Goliath) is a recognized biblical motif, though not systematized as Paul does here. | Partial agreement via shared biblical motif; not developed as a general theological principle. |
| Islamic | Human weakness before Allah’s power is affirmed generally (submission to divine will), but “boasting in weakness” as a rhetorical/theological strategy has no direct parallel. | Partial overlap on human insufficiency before God; no parallel for boasting-in-weakness rhetoric. |
| Hindu | Some devotional (bhakti) traditions praise humility and self-surrender before the divine, but this is not paired with a doctrine of divine power specifically “perfected” through weakness. | Partial overlap on humility as virtue; no direct analogue to the paradox as stated. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Confucian and broader Chinese social values strongly prize strength, competence, achievement, and preserved social standing (面子); Daoist thought does value yielding/softness (as in 柔弱胜刚强, Daodejing) as a strategic virtue, which offers a partial rhetorical bridge but is a strategy for effectiveness, not a theology of divine power displayed through acknowledged human insufficiency before God. | High collision risk — primarily cultural-value rather than lexical: boasting in weakness risks being read as false modesty, fatalistic resignation, or plain failure/loss of face unless explicitly framed as God’s sovereign, paradoxical choice; the Daoist 柔弱 motif can be cautiously bridged but must not be equated with this doctrine’s theistic grounding. |
| Buddhist | Non-attachment to strength/status is valued as part of detachment from ego, but there is no personal God whose power is displayed through the practitioner’s weakness. | Partial overlap on non-attachment to strength; diverges by removing the personal-God/grace framework. |
| Secular | Modern “vulnerability” discourse (e.g., in psychology/leadership literature) values authenticity and admitting limitation, but as a human relational/psychological good, not as the site of divine power. | Partial surface overlap on valuing vulnerability; diverges by removing the transcendent power-display claim. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that weakness itself is the virtue (stoic endurance or resignation), rather than the specific site where God’s power is displayed; must not be read as false modesty or loss of face. Sensitive terminology: 夸口 (boasting) must be clearly ironic/rhetorical in context; 软弱 must always be paired explicitly with 神的大能.
8. Genuine versus False Apostleship (真使徒与假使徒)
Primary passages: 2 Corinthians 10:1-18; 11:1-15; 13:5-7
| Tradition | View | Agreement/Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Genuine apostolic authority is authenticated by suffering, sincerity, doctrinal fidelity to the gospel, and Spirit-given fruit — not credentials, rhetorical polish, or self-commendation; false teachers may be satanically empowered counterfeits. | Baseline curriculum view. |
| Catholic | Authenticity is also verified through communion with the apostolic hierarchy/magisterium; unauthorized teachers are identified partly through institutional/doctrinal non-conformity. | Agrees on doctrinal-fidelity criterion; adds institutional-communion criterion. |
| Orthodox | Similarly verifies authentic teaching through conformity to apostolic tradition transmitted through the episcopate; false teaching is heresy departing from received tradition. | Agrees on doctrinal-fidelity criterion; adds institutional-tradition criterion. |
| Jewish | False prophecy is tested against Torah-fidelity and the accuracy of predictions (Deuteronomy 13, 18); the category is “false prophet,” not “false apostle,” but the underlying concern (testing claimed divine messengers) is analogous. | Partial analogue via the false-prophet testing tradition; different institutional category. |
| Islamic | False claims to prophethood are firmly rejected since prophecy is sealed in Muhammad; anyone claiming new revelation after him is by definition false, but this is a different structural issue than testing rival “apostles” within an already-established community. | Partial analogue (concern for false religious claimants); different theological structure (finality of prophecy vs. ongoing false teachers within the church). |
| Hindu | Authenticity of a guru is tested by lineage, demonstrated realization, and community discernment; imposters are a recognized concern, but not framed as satanic deception in a cosmic-conflict sense. | Partial overlap on the general concern for false teachers; diverges on the satanic-deception framing. |
| Chinese traditions (Confucian/folk/Daoist) | Folk religion recognizes deceptive or fraudulent spirit-mediums and fortune-tellers exploiting religious credulity for profit; Confucian tradition values discerning the genuine 君子 (noble person) from the hypocrite (小人) by character and consistency. | Moderate overlap on general wariness of religious fraud for profit; collision risk in disguise-imagery: “disguised as an angel of light” (装作光明的天使) must not be read through benevolent light-emanating immortal/bodhisattva imagery, which could blur Satan’s deceptive self-presentation into a neutral or benevolent spiritual-being category. |
| Buddhist | Recognizes the danger of false or corrupt teachers (and even “demonic” interference, māra, testing practitioners), but without the same personal-cosmic-adversary structure or the specific “false apostle” ecclesial category. | Partial overlap via the māra-interference concept; diverges structurally from the personal-Satan, church-authority framework. |
| Secular | False religious leaders are evaluated by ethical conduct, financial transparency, and psychological manipulation red flags (cult-awareness literature) — a purely this-worldly accountability framework. | Partial overlap on practical discernment criteria; diverges by removing the cosmic spiritual-warfare dimension entirely. |
Must-not-invite misunderstanding: that “false apostle” means merely “uncredentialed” or “institutionally unauthorized” rather than “satanically-empowered deceptive counterfeit” (11:14-15); that Satan’s disguise as “an angel of light” implies a category that could include benevolent light-emanating spiritual beings. Sensitive terminology: 假使徒 and 装作光明的天使 must retain their full deception/spiritual-warfare weight in any teaching gloss.
Cross-Doctrine Observations for Translators
- The sharpest, highest-stakes collision in this curriculum is Generosity and Grace in Giving vs. Chinese/Buddhist merit-giving (功德) — because giving is precisely the domain where readers’ existing religious instincts most naturally reach for a merit-transaction framework.
- The most linguistically entangled collision is Reconciliation with God vs. Confucian 和好/和 — because the mandated Mandarin term (和好) is itself the everyday word for the competing concept, unlike doctrines where a forbidden term can simply be avoided.
- Judaism and Islam most consistently diverge from this curriculum’s Christology-dependent doctrines (reconciliation through Christ’s mediatorial death, new covenant fulfillment in Christ, apostleship as a Christ-commissioned office) since both reject the mediatorial/incarnational framework underlying them — teaching materials addressing interfaith contexts should anticipate these as points of respectful but real disagreement, not translation errors to be smoothed over.
- Buddhism and Hindu traditions most consistently diverge on the nature of the self and suffering (new creation, power in weakness, suffering-and-comfort) since both locate the resolution of suffering in transcending or dissolving self-attachment rather than in a personal God’s redemptive action toward a durably real self.
- Secular readings most consistently strip the vertical (God-ward) dimension from every doctrine in this list, retaining only the horizontal/psychological residue (self-acceptance, resilience, vulnerability, altruism, transparency) — translators and curriculum writers should expect secular-leaning readers to supply this reduction by default unless the text explicitly blocks it.
This document must be read alongside 11_doctrine_analysis.md (risk tiers and
review routing) and 08_core_glossary.md (term-level renderings). It does not
introduce new Mandarin terminology; all forbidden/mandated terms remain as
fixed in translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json.