For each of the eight core doctrines of this curriculum, this document surveys how the doctrine is understood (or misunderstood, or has no real analog) across major world traditions, with special attention to the destination culture’s dominant traditions in Mandarin-speaking contexts — Chinese Folk Religion and the Confucian-Daoist ethical-metaphysical substrate — alongside Chinese Buddhism (treated separately, as it is its own major tradition column). Each section closes with agreement/divergence notes, misunderstandings a translation must not invite, and sensitive terminology flags that extend (never contradict) the baseline and Deuteronomy-specific risk registries.
1. The Shema and Exclusive Love for God (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
The Shema is the foundational monotheistic confession, fulfilled in Trinitarian revelation (one God, three Persons); love for God is covenantal loyalty flowing from grace, echoed in Jesus’ citation of it as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-30).
Catholic
Affirms the same confession; additionally frames it within natural law and the Church’s teaching authority on the First Commandment; love for God is inseparable from love of neighbor, formalized in moral theology.
Orthodox
Emphasizes the Shema within liturgical and ascetic life — theosis (union with God) as the fruit of wholehearted love, approached through synergy of grace and human effort.
Jewish
The Shema (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל) is the central daily liturgical confession of Judaism, recited morning and evening, bound literally to hand and head (tefillin) and doorpost (mezuzah); strict, uncompromising monotheism (יהוה אֶחָד) is definitional to Jewish identity itself.
Islamic
Strong structural resonance with tawhid (the absolute oneness of Allah); Muslims recognize the Shema’s monotheism as compatible with their own core confession, though they reject any Trinitarian reading of “one.”
Hindu
Most Hindu traditions accommodate a spectrum from strict monism (Advaita, one ultimate reality manifesting as many) to devotional monotheism (bhakti to a chosen ishta-devata) within an overall pluralistic framework; exclusive, categorical devotion to one deity to the total exclusion of all others is a minority (though not absent) emphasis.
Buddhist
No creator-deity framework; “oneness” language is typically read through non-theistic or non-dual metaphysical categories (e.g., śūnyatā, dependent origination) rather than personal exclusive devotion to a single personal God.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
Operates a functional pantheon — city gods (城隍), kitchen god (灶神), earth god (土地公), ancestral spirits — each governing a separate domain and worshipped without exclusivity; simultaneous devotion to multiple deities/spirits is normal and non-contradictory. Confucian ethics grounds “loving” a superior (ruler, parent) in structured relational duty (仁, 义, 孝) rather than covenantal exclusivity toward a single personal deity.
Secular/Humanist
Reads the Shema as an ancient near-Eastern political-religious loyalty oath consolidating tribal identity; “love” is analyzed as socially functional allegiance language rather than a claim with ongoing metaphysical force.
Agreement/Divergence
Broad agreement across Jewish, Islamic, and Christian traditions that monotheism is categorical, not merely a ranking of “chief god.” Sharpest divergence is with Hindu pluralism and Chinese folk religion’s functional-pantheon model, both of which can readily absorb “the LORD” as one legitimate object of devotion among others rather than the only legitimate one.
Misunderstandings to avoid
Do not let 独一 (echad) be read as “supreme/highest” within an implicitly larger pantheon (a common folk-religious accommodation move); do not let commanded love be read as one relational duty among several owed to different powers (ancestors, local gods, state).
Sensitive terminology
独一 (must convey categorical exclusivity, not mere rank); 爱 (must be covenant-loyalty love responding to prior redemption, not Confucian 孝/义 duty-love); avoid any phrasing that could be misread as endorsing a “chief god among many” reading of 神.
2. Covenant Renewal (Deuteronomy 5, 27, 29, 31)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
Covenant renewal at Moab is the second-generation re-ratification of the Horeb covenant, typologically anticipating the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20); covenant is unilaterally gracious in origin, though it requires a response.
Catholic
Reads covenant renewal within a sacramental-continuity framework, seeing Deuteronomy’s renewal ceremonies as prefiguring the Church’s ongoing sacramental re-actualization of covenant (especially the Eucharist as New Covenant renewal).
Orthodox
Emphasizes covenant renewal as participatory communion (koinonia) with God renewed through liturgical remembrance, paralleling the Divine Liturgy’s repeated re-entry into covenant reality.
Jewish
Covenant renewal ceremonies (Horeb, Moab, Shechem, and later Ezra-Nehemiah, Josiah) are the historical template for ongoing Jewish covenant renewal practice — Yom Kippur, the Passover Seder’s “as if I myself came out of Egypt,” and public Torah reading (cf. Deut 31) all reenact this pattern.
Islamic
No formal covenant-renewal ceremony concept, though the recurring Qur’anic call to renew one’s submission (islam) to Allah and periodic collective recommitment (e.g., annual Hajj rites) offers a loose structural parallel.
Hindu
No close analog; some traditions feature periodic vow-renewal (vrata) to a deity, but without the corporate, generational, textually-fixed covenant-document structure of Deuteronomy.
Buddhist
No covenant concept; the closest analog is the periodic recitation of precepts/vows (e.g., Pratimoksha recitation in monastic communities), which renews commitment to a rule of practice rather than a relational bond with a personal deity.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
The nearest cultural analog is the renewal of ancestral/temple vows during annual festivals (e.g., Qingming ancestor rites, temple-fair oath renewals) or a sworn-brotherhood pact (结拜, already flagged under baseline fellowship); these are ritual-obligation renewals within a hierarchy of reciprocal favor, not the re-ratification of a unilaterally gracious relational bond.
Secular/Humanist
Reads covenant renewal as ancient political treaty-renewal ritual (paralleling Hittite/Assyrian vassal-treaty forms), a a functional mechanism for social cohesion and legal continuity across generations.
Agreement/Divergence
Jewish tradition retains the closest living ritual continuity with Deuteronomy’s own renewal pattern. Christian traditions diverge in locating ultimate fulfillment in the New Covenant. Sharpest divergence with Chinese folk religion is the direction and basis of obligation: covenant renewal in Deuteronomy re-affirms a relationship God graciously initiated, not a reciprocal exchange of favor for ritual maintenance.
Misunderstandings to avoid
Do not let 约 read as a renegotiated commercial contract (合同/契约) between equal parties; do not let the renewal ceremonies be flattened into generic ritual-cycle maintenance akin to ancestor-rite renewal.
Sensitive terminology
约 (relational covenant, not contract); avoid 结拜-adjacent framing (sworn-brotherhood pact) for the Horeb/Moab/Shechem ceremonies.
3. Blessings and Curses of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 11, 27–28, 30)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
Blessing/curse is the covenant’s built-in relational consequence structure — obedience issues in flourishing under God’s favor, disobedience in judgment; read typologically, Christ bears the curse (Galatians 3:13) so believers receive the blessing.
Catholic
Affirms the same structure, integrating it with the doctrine of temporal vs. eternal consequences of sin and the Church’s teaching on the moral order of providence.
Orthodox
Frames blessing/curse within the cosmic-moral order restored through Christ’s victory over death and the demonic, seeing Deuteronomy 28 as anticipating this cosmic reversal.
Jewish
Deuteronomy 28’s blessings/curses (the “tocheikhah”) are read as literal historical prophecy of exile and return, recited (in some communities, in a lowered voice out of reverence/dread) as part of the Torah-reading cycle; rabbinic tradition debates the balance of merit and grace in triggering blessing or curse.
Islamic
Strong structural parallel: Qur’anic covenant theology likewise ties national/communal fortune to obedience to Allah’s commands, and the fate of prior peoples (e.g., ‘Ad, Thamud) is presented as covenant-curse fulfilled in history.
Hindu
The closest available analog is karma — future circumstance determined by accumulated moral cause-and-effect — but karma operates impersonally across the self’s own reincarnated trajectory, not as a personal deity’s relational response to a specific covenant community’s fidelity.
Buddhist
Similarly reads blessing/misfortune through the impersonal law of karma and dependent origination, not the personal favor or displeasure of a covenant God.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
福 and 咒诅-adjacent concepts are deeply embedded in daily practice — fortune (福) is sought through charms, red envelopes, feng shui, and ancestor appeasement, while curses (咒诅/符咒) are associated with ritual black magic; both are widely treated as manipulable through correct ritual technique rather than as the relational consequence of covenant loyalty to a personal God.
Secular/Humanist
Reads Deuteronomy 28 as ancient covenant/treaty-curse rhetoric (a standard ANE genre feature) functioning as social-compliance incentive literature, without ongoing metaphysical force.
Agreement/Divergence
Islamic and Jewish traditions share the closest structural agreement (personal, historically-verifiable covenant consequence). Sharpest divergence is with the karma-based traditions (Hindu, Buddhist) and Chinese folk religion, all of which tend toward impersonal or ritual-technique causation rather than relational covenant response.
Misunderstandings to avoid
Do not let 福/祝福 be read as fortune obtainable through correct technique (feng shui, charms) rather than covenant obedience to a personal God; do not let 咒诅 be read as a ritual curse achievable through magical practice (符咒) rather than God’s own righteous judgment.
Sensitive terminology
福/祝福, 咒诅 — both require explicit relational-covenant anchoring in every occurrence, per the existing High-risk flag in the doctrine registry.
Remembrance (זָכַר) is active, liturgically-formed gratitude that shapes present ethics (Sabbath-keeping, generosity to the poor); typologically anticipates remembrance of Christ’s redemption (the Lord’s Supper, “do this in remembrance of me”).
Catholic
Frames remembrance sacramentally — anamnesis, a liturgical re-presentation that makes the past redemptive act present in effect, most fully realized in the Eucharist.
Orthodox
Shares the anamnesis framework; strongly emphasizes liturgical remembrance as participatory, not merely mental recollection.
Jewish
Central and ongoing: the Passover Seder’s command “in every generation, each person is obligated to see themselves as if they personally went out of Egypt” is the direct living continuation of Deuteronomy’s remembrance ethic; the Exodus redemption remains the founding narrative rehearsed in daily liturgy.
Islamic
Recognizes the Exodus (and Musa/Moses) as a major prophetic narrative of divine deliverance from Pharaoh, referenced repeatedly in the Qur’an as a sign for reflection, though without the specific covenant-nation remembrance-ethic structure Deuteronomy builds on it.
Hindu
No close structural analog; some devotional traditions emphasize remembering a deity’s past acts of grace (e.g., Krishna’s interventions in the Mahabharata) as grounds for devotion (bhakti), offering a loose thematic echo.
Buddhist
No redemption-from-historical-slavery analog; the closest thematic parallel is remembering the Buddha’s teaching and example, which functions as instruction toward liberation rather than gratitude for a completed historical deliverance.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
Ancestor veneration (祭祖) is the dominant Chinese remembrance practice — but its direction of care is inverted: living descendants ritually care for and appease departed ancestors, rather than a people gratefully remembering what a living God has already done for them. Confucian filial piety (孝) similarly frames remembrance as a debt owed to forebears, not gratitude for received grace.
Secular/Humanist
Reads communal remembrance rituals functionally, as identity-consolidating cultural memory practices (comparable to national founding-narrative commemorations), without necessary reference to an active, redeeming deity.
Agreement/Divergence
Jewish tradition preserves the most direct living continuity with Deuteronomy’s own remembrance ethic. Sharpest and most theologically important divergence is with Chinese ancestor veneration, whose care-direction (descendants caring for ancestors) is the functional inverse of biblical remembrance (a redeemed people remembering what God did for them).
Misunderstandings to avoid
记念 must not be assimilated to 祭祖-style ancestor care; 救赎 must never be rendered 解脱/超度 (already Critical-forbidden under the baseline and this curriculum’s registry).
Sensitive terminology
记念, 救赎 — both require explicit anchoring to a living, redeemed people’s gratitude-driven obedience, not posthumous ritual or ancestor-care logic.
5. Obedience Motivated by Love not Merit (Deuteronomy 6:5, 7:7-8, 9:4-6, 10:12-16, 30:6-20)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
A key OT anticipation of the grace/works distinction fully unfolded in Romans and Galatians: Israel’s election and land-gift precede and ground obedience (7:7-8; 9:4-6), rather than resulting from prior merit; obedience is the fruit of a love relationship, not its precondition.
Catholic
Affirms grace’s priority while integrating obedience within a synergistic framework in which grace enables and rewards genuine human moral cooperation; merit language is used carefully to describe grace-enabled good works, not self-generated merit.
Orthodox
Frames obedience within synergy and theosis — the human will cooperates with grace already given, growing progressively into the likeness of God; obedience is transformative participation, not either pure earning or passive reception.
Jewish
Rabbinic tradition holds obedience to mitzvot as the grateful, joyful response of an already-chosen covenant people (echoing Deut 7:7-8’s “not because you were more numerous”), while also developing robust merit-of-the-fathers (zechut avot) and reward-for-observance theology in later tradition.
Islamic
Obedience (islam, submission) to Allah’s commands is generally understood as both the grateful response to Allah’s mercy and the means by which one’s ultimate standing before Allah is favorably weighed on the Day of Judgment; the balance between grace and merit is debated across schools but merit-weighing plays a more structurally central role than in the Protestant reading of Deuteronomy.
Hindu
Obedience/duty (dharma) is generally tied to one’s position in the cosmic-social order and generates karmic consequence; a close but not identical parallel to merit-based systems, operating impersonally rather than relationally.
Buddhist
Ethical conduct (śīla) is a discipline that generates merit (功德) contributing to a better rebirth or progress toward liberation — a directly merit-accounting framework, structurally opposite to Deuteronomy 9:4-6’s explicit denial that Israel’s blessing rests on their own righteousness.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
The dominant cultural intuition is the merit-ledger (功德, 阴德) — good deeds accumulate transferable, quantifiable merit affecting one’s own or one’s descendants’ fortune — combined with Confucian filial obedience (孝顺) as a duty discharged toward a superior. Both frameworks are structurally opposed to Deuteronomy’s insistence that obedience flows from prior, unearned love and election.
Secular/Humanist
Reads Deuteronomy’s obedience ethic as an ancient covenant-loyalty incentive structure, analyzable in terms of in-group social cohesion and reciprocal obligation rather than a claim about grace preceding merit.
Agreement/Divergence
This doctrine sits at the sharpest point of collision with the destination culture: Buddhist merit-accounting (功德) and Confucian filial-duty obedience (孝顺) are both live, default interpretive lenses Mandarin readers will likely apply unless explicitly corrected. Jewish and (with qualification) Islamic traditions share more of Deuteronomy’s own “grateful response to prior grace” emphasis, though later merit-theology develops in both.
Misunderstandings to avoid
Do not let obedience in Deuteronomy 6:5, 7:7-8, 9:4-6, 30:6-20 be read as the means by which Israel earns or maintains God’s favor; do not let it be read as a filial debt owed to a superior in a status hierarchy.
Sensitive terminology
爱, 顺服 (already governed by baseline obedience_of_faith), 功德 (forbidden), 孝顺 (must be explicitly distinguished from, not used to translate, covenant obedience).
6. The Coming Prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, 34:10-12)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
A direct messianic prophecy fulfilled uniquely and finally in Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22; 7:37); the “no prophet like Moses arose again” of 34:10 is a deliberate canonical open loop resolved only in the Gospels.
Catholic
Affirms the same Christological fulfillment, integrated within the broader typological reading of Moses as a type of Christ (lawgiver, mediator, intercessor).
Orthodox
Shares the Christological reading; emphasizes Moses-Christ typology within the Church’s liturgical and iconographic tradition (e.g., the Transfiguration’s pairing of Moses and Elijah with Christ).
Jewish
Historically read in a range of ways: some streams anticipate a future prophet or a succession of true prophets in Israel’s ongoing prophetic line; rabbinic Judaism generally does not read this passage as a single, exclusively future-Messianic prophecy, and does not affirm Jesus as its fulfillment.
Islamic
Some Islamic apologetic tradition has historically argued this passage anticipates Muhammad as “a prophet like Moses” (citing shared features such as bringing a comprehensive law and being a native, non-exilic prophet to his own people); this reading is explicitly rejected by the Christian theological tradition this curriculum represents.
Hindu
No structural analog to a singular, historically-bounded prophetic office; Hindu tradition’s closest parallel concept (avatara, periodic divine descent) operates on a repeating-incarnation model foreign to Deuteronomy’s singular fulfillment claim.
Buddhist
No prophet-office analog; the closest (still distant) parallel is the expectation of Maitreya, a future Buddha — already flagged Critical under the baseline messiah term for its collision risk with a repeating-savior-figure worldview.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
No direct analog; the closest cultural intuition available to Mandarin readers is the reincarnation-succession model (as in recognized lineages of reborn spiritual teachers in some folk and Buddhist-influenced contexts), which risks being read onto “a prophet like Moses” as a repeating, reincarnating office rather than a singular, once-fulfilled historical figure.
Secular/Humanist
Reads the passage as an ancient Israelite mechanism for legitimating a continuing line of prophetic authority after Moses’ death, without necessary reference to a specific future fulfillment.
Agreement/Divergence
Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions agree on exclusive Christological fulfillment. Jewish tradition does not affirm this fulfillment; Islamic apologetic tradition offers a rival fulfillment claim (Muhammad) that this Language Package’s Christian theological commitments do not adopt. Sharpest translation-relevant risk is the reincarnation-succession misreading available to Mandarin readers.
Misunderstandings to avoid
Do not let “a prophet like Moses” be read as a repeating spiritual office or reincarnated succession; do not present the Jewish or Islamic alternative fulfillment claims as equally live options within Christian teaching material, while still accurately describing that such claims exist in comparative context.
Sensitive terminology
先知 (established, low collision on its own); the specific phrase 像摩西一样的先知 (glossary #41) must always carry a note preserving the single-fulfillment, non-repeating force of the promise.
7. Choosing Life over Death (Deuteronomy 30:1-20)
Tradition
Interpretation
Protestant
The climactic covenant appeal: a genuine, weighty human choice set within a framework of prior divine grace and initiative (30:6, God himself circumcises the heart) — held together with, not opposed to, sovereign election; a key OT text for the compatibility of divine sovereignty and real human responsibility.
Catholic
Reads this as a paradigm case of the cooperation of grace and free will (synergy), with strong homiletical use in moral catechesis on the two ways (via vitae / via mortis).
Orthodox
Emphasizes ongoing free cooperation (synergy) with grace across a lifetime, with “choosing life” read as an ongoing, not merely one-time, orientation of the will toward God.
Jewish
A foundational text for Jewish moral theology’s affirmation of free will (bechirah chofshit) — the rabbinic tradition reads Deuteronomy 30 as establishing that Torah observance is a genuinely open, responsible human choice, not predetermined.
Islamic
Resonates with the Qur’anic theme of a clear, presented choice between guidance and misguidance (e.g., Surah al-Insan 76:3), within Islam’s own broader debate over divine decree (qadar) and human responsibility.
Hindu
The closest available analog is the doctrine of purushartha (human agency in pursuing dharma) operating within, but not overriding, karmic causation; the choice is real but embedded in a longer cyclical, cross-life framework rather than a single covenant-generation decision.
Buddhist
Some resonance with the emphasis on volitional action (karma as intentional act) determining future rebirth-consequence, but without a personal covenant God setting the terms of the choice.
Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant)
The closest cultural intuition is fate/destiny language (命运, 天命) — outcomes as the unfolding of an impersonal cosmic order — which risks flattening Deuteronomy 30’s genuinely responsive, relational choice into either impersonal fatalism or a folk-fortune framework where the “right” ritual choice secures good luck (福) rather than covenant faithfulness.
Secular/Humanist
Reads the “life and death” framing as ancient rhetorical persuasion device for covenant compliance, translatable into modern terms as a consequentialist appeal to enlightened self-interest.
Agreement/Divergence
Jewish and Islamic traditions both affirm real human choice within their respective frameworks, offering the closest resonance. Sharpest divergence is with Chinese fatalistic destiny-language (命运) and folk fortune-seeking, both of which this doctrine’s translation must actively resist.
Misunderstandings to avoid
拣选 (choose) here must not be confused with, nor substitute for, God’s sovereign election (also 拣选 in the baseline election term) without a distinguishing note; the choice must not be read as fatalistic destiny (命运) or a fortune-securing ritual choice.
Sensitive terminology
拣选生命 (glossary #46) — mandatory translator’s note required per the doctrine registry; 命运 remains a forbidden-adjacent term to avoid for this passage’s framing.
Idolatry is the fundamental covenant sin — worship or trust misdirected toward any created thing instead of the one true God; Deuteronomy’s prohibitions on images and other gods ground the whole Reformed and evangelical emphasis on the exclusivity and non-representability of God.
Catholic
Affirms the same prohibition on idolatry while distinguishing it carefully from the veneration (not worship) given to images of Christ and the saints (iconography, statuary) within Catholic devotional practice — a distinction requiring careful, explicit handling in any comparative discussion.
Orthodox
Similarly distinguishes idolatry from icon veneration, holding that icons are venerated as windows to the person depicted, not worshipped as the divine presence itself — a theologically load-bearing distinction in Orthodox-Protestant dialogue.
Jewish
The strictest and most historically continuous tradition of anti-idolatry practice among the Abrahamic faiths; the prohibition on images (the second of the Ten Commandments, restated in Deut 5:8-10) remains foundational to Jewish worship practice to this day.
Islamic
Shares an equally strong, arguably even more visually rigorous, prohibition on images of the divine (and broadly, in many schools, on figurative representation in sacred contexts); tawhid’s rejection of shirk (associating partners with Allah) is directly resonant with Deuteronomy’s warnings against other gods.
Hindu
Represents the most direct point of respectful theological tension: image/murti veneration is a mainstream, theologically developed devotional practice in most Hindu traditions, understood by practitioners as a means of encountering a deity’s presence, not as worship of the material object itself — structurally similar in defense-logic to Catholic/Orthodox iconography, but applied to a polytheistic or pluralistic theological framework Deuteronomy directly opposes.
|
| Buddhist | Buddha-image veneration is widespread in Chinese Buddhist practice; doctrinally, images are typically understood as objects of respect/meditation focus rather than as inhabited by or identical to a deity, though popular practice often blurs this line toward petition and favor-seeking similar to folk-religious idol use. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | This is the single sharpest, most pervasive collision point in the entire book: home shrines and temple statues of city gods, kitchen gods, earth gods, and ancestral tablets (神像, 牌位) are normal, integrated features of everyday religious life; Deuteronomy’s absolute prohibition on any carved image of the divine directly confronts this practice at its foundation, not as an abstracted ancient custom but as a live, present-tense cultural reality. |
| Secular/Humanist | Reads the anti-idolatry legislation as ancient religio-political enforcement of cultic exclusivity/centralization, serving state-building and identity-consolidation functions rather than reflecting a metaphysical claim about the sole legitimacy of one deity. |
| Agreement/Divergence | Jewish and Islamic traditions share Deuteronomy’s strictest anti-image stance most closely. Catholic, Orthodox, and Hindu traditions each maintain theologically sophisticated defenses of image-veneration that are structurally analogous to one another but must not be treated by this translation as equivalent to Deuteronomy’s own absolute prohibition, which this curriculum represents without qualification. Chinese folk religion offers the most extensive, currently-practiced point of real-life friction. |
| Misunderstandings to avoid | Do not let 雕刻的像 / 偶像 be softened into a merely “excessive” or “improper” form of image use that could, done correctly, be acceptable; Deuteronomy’s prohibition is categorical, not a critique of poor technique. Do not conflate Catholic/Orthodox icon veneration with the idolatry this book condemns in exposition aimed at a general Mandarin audience without careful, explicit framing, since doing so could derail catechesis into an unintended anti-Catholic/Orthodox polemic rather than the text’s actual target (rival-deity worship and image-worship of the divine). |
| Sensitive terminology | 雕刻的像, 偶像, 别神, 鬼魔 — all Critical; every occurrence must be taught against the specific, currently-practiced backdrop of Chinese home/temple deity images (神像) and ancestral tablets (牌位), per the doctrine registry’s existing Critical flag. |
See 08_core_glossary.md for term-level renderings and 11_doctrine_analysis.md for the full chapter-by-chapter doctrine matrix underlying this comparative analysis.
Library content is free and openly licensed under
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
— share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.