Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — Gospel of John (English–Mandarin)
Purpose
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 (Confucian, Daoist, and Chinese folk religion, including the Chinese-inflected Mahayana Buddhism that interacts with all three). This is a companion document to 11_doctrine_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md; it exists to identify (a) where traditions substantially agree, (b) where they diverge in ways a translation must render without erasing, and (c) specific misreadings and sensitive terms the Mandarin rendering must actively guard against, consistent with the Critical/High risk flags already recorded in assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json.
This document does not change any established rendering in translation_memory.json or the John-specific glossary; it explains why those renderings and their accompanying translator notes are necessary.
1. The Deity and Pre-existence of Christ (the Word)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Christ is eternally, fully God — co-equal and co-eternal with the Father; John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) is a core prooftext of historic creedal orthodoxy (Nicene Creed). |
| Catholic | Identical Nicene/Chalcedonian affirmation; developed through patristic Logos theology (Justin Martyr, Athanasius) and scholastic Trinitarian doctrine. |
| Orthodox | Same Nicene affirmation, articulated through Cappadocian Logos Christology and the essence/energies distinction; liturgically expressed in Christ Pantocrator iconography. |
| Jewish | Rejects the claim; a pre-existent divine Logos becoming man is read as a departure from strict monotheism (the Shema). Some scholars note the Logos concept’s roots in Hellenistic Jewish thought (Philo) but reject its Christological application. |
| Islamic | Denies Christ’s eternal deity; the Qur’an calls Jesus (Isa) “a Word from God” (kalimatun minhu, Q3:45) but as a created word/command, not an eternal divine Person; associating any partner with God (shirk) is a grave concern. |
| Hindu | Risk of assimilation to avatara theology — Christ read as one divine manifestation among many (like an avatar of Vishnu), which flattens the uniqueness and once-for-all claim of John 1. |
| Buddhist | No creator-deity category; Logos is a foreign concept. Some readers may equate 道 Christologically with Dharma or Buddha-nature — an impersonal ordering principle, not a personal, eternal divine Person. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | Highest collision risk in the entire curriculum. 道 is the central term of Daoist metaphysics — the impersonal cosmic principle (“道可道，非常道” — Daodejing ch. 1). Neo-Confucian discourse on 理 (li, “principle”) offers a partial rational parallel, but is likewise impersonal. Chinese folk religion may simply absorb Jesus as one more powerful spirit/deity among many local and ancestral spirits, losing exclusivity entirely. |
| Secular | Reads the Logos-Christology of John 1 as later Hellenistic-philosophical theological development laid over the historical Jesus (historical-critical scholarship); denies the historicity of the pre-existence claim. |
Agreement: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions agree fully and are historically unified on this doctrine (Nicene Creed). Divergence: Judaism and Islam explicitly and doctrinally reject it; Hinduism risks syncretistic absorption via avatara; Buddhism and secular readings reduce it to metaphor or philosophy. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that Jesus is one avatar/manifestation among several (Hindu-avatara collision); that 道 names an impersonal principle rather than a personal, self-existent divine Person (Daoist/Confucian collision); that Sonship is honorific/exalted-human rather than eternal and ontological (Jewish/Islamic-adjacent misreading). Sensitive terminology: 道, 独生子, 与神平等, 我是.
2. The New Birth and Regeneration by the Spirit
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Spirit-wrought regeneration, necessary to enter the kingdom of God, received by faith; traditions vary on monergism vs. synergism but agree the new birth is God’s sovereign act, not human self-improvement. |
| Catholic | Regeneration is effected principally through the sacrament of Baptism — Spirit-wrought infusion of grace; John 3:5’s “water and Spirit” is read sacramentally. |
| Orthodox | Similarly sacramental (Baptism and Chrismation), understood as the beginning of a lifelong synergistic process toward theosis (deification), not a single completed event. |
| Jewish | No direct doctrinal parallel; some resonance with covenantal conversion (a proselyte “becoming a new creature” under the covenant) and ritual immersion (mikveh), but without Johannine “born from above” theology. |
| Islamic | No concept of ontological spiritual rebirth; emphasis on submission (islam) and moral reform. Risk of the doctrine being assimilated to a moral-reform reading rather than a re-creative divine act. |
| Hindu | Risk of conflation with reincarnation (punarjanma) or with “awakening” language from moksha-oriented traditions; “born again” may be misheard as a claim about rebirth into a new body or life-cycle. |
| Buddhist | Strong risk of conflation with the rebirth cycle (轮回); must be clearly taught as a one-time, Spirit-given re-creation, not one link in an ongoing cycle of rebirths aimed at escaping suffering. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 重生 is common, secular Mandarin for any dramatic personal turnaround (recovering from illness, disaster survival) — a “false friend” risk distinct from doctrinal collision. Layered onto this is the genuine risk of 轮回 (Buddhist reincarnation) collision, and 3:5’s water imagery risks assimilation to 符水 (Daoist talisman-water) ritual-healing practice. |
| Secular | Reads “born again” as psychological/therapeutic transformation or dramatic personal turnaround (recovery narratives; “born-again” as a Western socio-political label), stripping away the Spirit’s supernatural agency. |
Agreement: All Christian traditions affirm the new birth is necessary and Spirit-given; they differ chiefly on the role of sacramental mediation. Divergence: sacramental (Catholic/Orthodox) vs. non-sacramental, faith-alone-emphasizing (much of Protestantism) readings of “water and Spirit” (John 3:5). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that regeneration is reincarnation, a secular self-help turnaround, or a magical ritual-water technique. Sensitive terminology: 重生, 水和圣灵, 圣灵.
3. Eternal Life through Faith in Christ
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Received now by faith alone; both a present possession and a future consummation (“already/not yet”); assurance is available in this life. |
| Catholic | The goal is the beatific vision; initiated by grace received through faith and sacraments, sustained by grace-empowered good works; can be forfeited through mortal sin and restored through reconciliation. |
| Orthodox | Eternal life as theosis — ongoing communion with God realized through synergy with grace and the sacramental life of the Church. |
| Jewish | Eternal life (olam ha-ba, “the world to come”) is present in Jewish eschatology, tied to righteous living and covenant faithfulness — with no equivalent to “faith in Christ” as the sole mechanism. |
| Islamic | Eternal life (Jannah) is granted through God’s mercy together with faith in Islamic monotheism and righteous deeds; the very mechanism in John (life through faith in Christ’s atoning work) is rejected. |
| Hindu | The parallel goal is liberation (moksha) from the cycle of samsara, achieved through jnana, bhakti, or karma — not a relational gift received by faith in a unique incarnate savior. |
| Buddhist | The parallel goal is liberation (nirvana) from suffering/samsara through the Eightfold Path — not eternal conscious relational life with a personal God. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 永生 collides directly with the Daoist pursuit of physical immortality (长生不老) through alchemy, elixirs (仙丹), or cultivation techniques aimed at becoming a 仙人/神仙. Must be taught as present, relational, qualitative life with God now, received by faith — never endless biological existence achieved by technique. |
| Secular | Eternal life reduced to metaphor for legacy, memory, or narrative meaning; explicit denial of literal continuing personal existence after death. |
Agreement: Abrahamic traditions broadly affirm personal survival and divine reward/judgment after death; the specific mechanism differs sharply. Divergence: faith-in-Christ-alone (Protestant emphasis) vs. faith-plus-sacrament-and-works (Catholic/Orthodox) vs. covenant-faithfulness (Jewish) vs. submission-and-deeds (Islamic) vs. liberation-from-cycle (Hindu/Buddhist). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that eternal life is earned by cultivation/technique (Daoist immortality-seeking) or merit-accumulation (功德); that it equals liberation from an impersonal cycle (moksha/nirvana); that it is mere secular legacy. Sensitive terminology: 永生, 信, 生命.
4. God’s Love for the World
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | God’s initiating, self-giving, unmerited love (agapē) toward a rebellious world, demonstrated supremely at the cross; universal in offer (Arminian emphasis) or in application understood variously (Reformed emphasis), but always God-initiated, not human-merited. |
| Catholic | Affirms a universal salvific will of God; love expressed through Christ’s sacrifice and continually mediated through sacramental grace. |
| Orthodox | God’s philanthropia (love for humankind) is central to soteriology, oriented toward restoring the divine image in all humanity through theosis. |
| Jewish | God’s covenantal love (chesed, ahavah) for Israel, extended in prophetic universalism to the nations — but not expressed through an incarnate Son given for the world’s sin. |
| Islamic | God’s mercy (rahma) is central and celebrated, but not expressed through a sacrificed divine Son; the Qur’an denies the crucifixion’s substitutionary function altogether. |
| Hindu | Divine grace exists in various bhakti forms (e.g., Krishna’s love in the Bhagavad Gita), but is not tied to a unique historical incarnation dying once for humanity’s sin. |
| Buddhist | Compassion (karuna) is a central virtue, even attributed to bodhisattvas who forgo nirvana to help others — a partial resonance, but not from a personal Creator God confronting sin and guilt through a legal-moral framework. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 爱 is broad, everyday vocabulary spanning romantic, familial, and patriotic senses. 神爱世人 risks being heard as generic parental affection, or as a folk deity’s benevolent favor dispensed to the pious (as in 祈福 blessing-seeking culture), rather than self-giving, sin-confronting, cross-directed love specific to this text. |
| Secular | Reads John 3:16 as a moving but non-literal expression of universal human solidarity or inclusive ethics, detached from claims about sin, wrath, or a literal atoning death. |
Agreement: Most traditions affirm a benevolent, compassionate ultimate reality or deity in some form. Divergence: the specific mechanism (an only Son given/crucified) is uniquely Christian; other traditions locate divine benevolence in law-giving, mercy, karuna, or bhakti-grace without this atoning transaction. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that 神爱世人 describes generic goodwill or dispensed blessing (福); that it equates with detached Buddhist compassion; that “the world” is narrowed to only the covenant-faithful or the already-devout. Sensitive terminology: 爱, 世人/世界, 独生子.
5. Judgment and Belief/Unbelief
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Final judgment is based on one’s relationship to Christ (belief/unbelief), already operative in the present (John 3:18-19); substitutionary atonement removes condemnation for believers. |
| Catholic | Judgment weighs both faith and works done in grace (particular and general judgment); belief in Christ is necessary but set within a sacramental-moral life trajectory. |
| Orthodox | Judgment is relational — experiencing God’s uncreated light as blessing or torment depending on spiritual readiness (theosis or its absence) — not a purely forensic ledger. |
| Jewish | Divine judgment (din) is assessed through Torah-observance, repentance (teshuvah), and God’s mercy; belief in Christ plays no role. |
| Islamic | Judgment (yawm al-qiyamah) is based on faith in God’s oneness and his prophets together with deeds weighed in a divine reckoning; the specific criterion (belief in Christ’s unique identity) is rejected. |
| Hindu | Karma determines future rebirths; there is no single, final, personal-God-administered judgment tied to belief in one savior. |
| Buddhist | Karma and dependent origination determine future rebirths within samsara; there is no personal judge in classical doctrine, though popular/folk Buddhism (especially in China) includes vivid judgment imagery. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | Specific and vivid collision: the widely known folk-Buddhist/Daoist syncretic vision of the Ten Courts of the Kings of Hell (十殿阎罗) and 阎王, who weighs a person’s accumulated deeds against a karmic ledger (报应), is a live cultural image. Biblical judgment in John must be clearly distinguished as personal, God-administered, and turning specifically on one’s response to the Son — not a bureaucratic afterlife tribunal weighing merit/demerit tallies. |
| Secular | Judgment reframed as purely this-worldly consequences of choices, or rejected outright as a coercive religious construct; no final divine reckoning is affirmed. |
Agreement: Most traditions affirm some form of moral accountability or reckoning after death. Divergence: the criterion of judgment (belief in Christ vs. Torah-observance vs. submission-and-deeds vs. karma) differs fundamentally across traditions. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that judgment is a karmic ledger system weighing accumulated deeds; that it is detachable from its Christ-centered criterion. Sensitive terminology: 审判, 信/不信, 灭亡.
6. The Seven “I Am” Statements
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Each statement is an exclusive self-disclosure of Christ’s unique identity and saving function, echoing the divine name of Exodus 3:14. |
| Catholic | Same exclusivity affirmed; John 6’s “bread of life” is additionally tied strongly to Eucharistic Real Presence theology, a distinctively Catholic emphasis. |
| Orthodox | Same exclusivity affirmed; liturgical and iconographic use of “true vine” and “bread of life” imagery is prominent, integrated into the Divine Liturgy. |
| Jewish | Recognizes the Exodus 3:14 divine-name echo but rejects its application to a human figure — historically read as precisely where the line into blasphemy or departure from monotheism was crossed (cf. John 8:58-59; 10:31-33). |
| Islamic | Rejects any implication of Jesus’s deity in these statements; at most reads them as elevated devotional metaphor, never a claim to be worshipped. |
| Hindu | Risk of reading the exclusive claims as one valid path among many equally valid paths (“many paths, one summit” religious pluralism), diluting the statements’ exclusivity. |
| Buddhist | No parallel category of a person claiming to be the personal embodiment of ultimate reality; risk of reading “I am the light of the world” analogously to Buddha-nature or an enlightened teacher’s illumination rather than a unique divine self-disclosure. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 道路、真理、生命 (the way, the truth, and the life, 14:6) shares the character 道 with Daoism’s “the Way,” risking a reading of Jesus as one exemplary teacher of an impersonal Way among several (paralleling both Daoist and Confucian usages of 道 for “the right way of living”). 生命的粮 and 活水 risk assimilation to folk-ritual food/water offerings. Mandarin’s lack of grammatical articles makes the exclusivity of “the,” not “a,” harder to convey without careful phrasing and teaching notes. |
| Secular | Reads the “I Am” statements as powerful literary or rhetorical self-assertion — leadership-branding language — without ontological claims to deity. |
Agreement: Near-universal agreement within Christian tradition on exclusivity and divine self-disclosure. Divergence: sharpest divergence with Jewish/Islamic monotheism (deity implication) and Hindu religious pluralism (exclusivity claim). Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that these are “a way among many”; that 道 in 14:6 is the Daoist Way; that bread/water imagery refers to ritual substances. Sensitive terminology: 道路、真理、生命, 生命的粮, 活水, 世界的光.
7. The Holy Spirit as Counselor
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | The personal, divine third Person of the Trinity, continuing Christ’s presence and ministry, indwelling every believer; Pentecostal/charismatic streams especially emphasize the Spirit’s active present-day ministry. |
| Catholic | Same Trinitarian personhood; strongly linked to the sacrament of Confirmation and to the Church’s teaching authority (magisterium). |
| Orthodox | Same personhood, but the historic filioque controversy is directly relevant here — Orthodox theology holds the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, a doctrinal divide partly rooted in Johannine texts (14:26; 15:26). |
| Jewish | Recognizes the Spirit of God/ruach ha-kodesh as God’s presence and prophetic-inspiring power, but not as a distinct divine Person continuing an incarnate Messiah’s ministry. |
| Islamic | Recognizes a “Holy Spirit” (Ruh al-Qudus) primarily identified with the angel Gabriel or God’s life-giving spirit — not a co-equal Person of a Trinity, which is rejected as shirk. |
| Hindu | Some traditions have concepts of an indwelling divine presence (Atman-Brahman identity; a deity’s grace/shakti dwelling in a devotee), but not a distinct divine Person sent by the Father and the Son. |
| Buddhist | No parallel personal-Spirit category; indwelling-presence language risks assimilation to Buddha-nature (an innate potential within all beings) rather than an external, personal, divine Helper. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 保惠师 is a coined Christian term with minimal prior secular baggage, which is itself a risk: it must be actively taught, not assumed self-evident. Risk of conflation with a folk-religious spirit-medium/ritual intermediary (法师) who channels power for a client, or with ancestral/nature spirits (祖灵, 灵). |
| Secular | May reduce “Spirit as Counselor” to a psychological metaphor for conscience or inner guidance, denying literal personal, supernatural agency. |
Agreement: All Trinitarian Christian traditions affirm the Spirit’s full personhood and deity; they differ specifically on procession (filioque). Divergence: sharp divergence from all non-Trinitarian traditions on the Spirit’s distinct personhood within the Godhead. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: that the Spirit is an impersonal force, an ancestral/nature spirit, or a manipulable ritual-power intermediary. Sensitive terminology: 保惠师, 真理的圣灵, 圣灵.
8. Christ’s Substitutionary Death and Resurrection
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Strong emphasis (especially Reformed/evangelical) on penal substitutionary atonement — Christ bears the punishment sinners deserved; the bodily resurrection is the vindicating historical proof and the guarantee of believers’ future resurrection. |
| Catholic | Affirms substitutionary/sacrificial atonement (following Anselm’s satisfaction model), integrated with the Eucharistic Mass’s sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice (not a repetition, but a making-present); bodily resurrection is central to Easter doctrine. |
| Orthodox | Emphasizes victory over death and corruption (Christus Victor / recapitulation, following Irenaeus) more than strict penal-substitution language, framed within cosmic renewal and theosis; the Paschal proclamation “Christ is risen!” is central. |
| Jewish | Rejects the framework outright; mainstream Jewish messianic expectation does not include a dying-and-rising Messiah (though isolated suffering-servant motifs exist in some Second Temple texts); Jesus’s death is read as a Roman execution of a failed messianic claimant, and bodily resurrection is denied. |
| Islamic | The dominant Sunni reading of the Qur’an (Q4:157) denies Jesus actually died on the cross at all (“they did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them”) — a major, sensitive point of direct doctrinal conflict; both substitutionary death and bodily resurrection are denied at the most fundamental level. |
| Hindu | No parallel concept of a unique, historical, once-for-all atoning death; some avatar narratives involve death/return, but function very differently — not as a legal/moral substitution for sin. |
| Buddhist | No parallel; suffering and death are universal features of samsara addressed through the Eightfold Path, not through another’s substitutionary death for a moral/legal offense against a personal God. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | 神的羔羊 (Lamb of God) risks conflation with the widespread Chinese folk-religious practice of animal sacrifice/offering to appease deities, spirits, or ancestors; must be taught as a unique, unrepeatable, substitutionary atonement, never a repeatable propitiatory ritual. 复活 must never be rendered or glossed with 轮回 (reincarnation), 投胎 (rebirth into a new womb), or 还魂 (folk ghost-story corpse-reanimation) — all live, well-known categories in the Chinese context. |
| Secular | Reads Jesus’s death as a moving historical martyrdom or political execution, and the resurrection accounts as later theological/legendary development, denying a literal bodily resurrection. |
Agreement: Historic Christian traditions (Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox) agree death and resurrection are historical, salvific, and central, differing mainly in atonement-model emphasis. Divergence: fundamental denial by Islam (the death itself is denied) and by Judaism (the messianic/atoning framework is denied); no functional equivalent in Hindu/Buddhist frameworks. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: any ambiguity in the crucifixion narrative that could suggest Christ only “appeared” to die (which would align, ironically, with the Islamic denial); rendering resurrection with reincarnation/rebirth/reanimation vocabulary; framing the Lamb of God as a repeatable appeasement offering. Sensitive terminology: 神的羔羊, 舍命, 钉十字架, 复活, 成了.
9. Unity of the Father and the Son
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Full ontological unity of shared divine essence within the Trinity (one being, three Persons), affirmed via the Nicene Creed; John 10:30 and 14:9-11 are key prooftexts. |
| Catholic | Same Nicene/Trinitarian affirmation, developed further in scholastic Trinitarian theology (relations of origin). |
| Orthodox | Same essential unity, articulated through the essence/energies distinction and the Cappadocian model of one ousia, three hypostases; expressed liturgically (e.g., the Trisagion). |
| Jewish | Rejects any plurality-within-unity of God as a departure from the Shema’s strict, indivisible monotheism; John 10:30 is read as precisely the kind of claim that provoked the historical charge of blasphemy (cf. John 10:33). |
| Islamic | Rejects the Trinity as shirk; “I and the Father are one” is read either as a metaphorical unity of purpose (acceptable in Islamic terms) or as a heretical ontological claim (rejected) — a Mandarin rendering that implied mere agreement would ironically align with an Islamic-acceptable but Christologically deficient reading, which must be avoided. |
| Hindu | Some monistic traditions (Advaita Vedanta) have a conceptual parallel in the identity of Atman and Brahman (“tat tvam asi,” “thou art that”) — but this is an impersonal, non-dual identity available in principle to all beings, a very different kind of oneness than the unique, exclusive ontological unity of the Father and the eternal Son. |
| Buddhist | No parallel personal-deity unity concept; any resonance would be with non-dual language about ultimate reality (e.g., Buddha-nature pervading all things) — again impersonal and non-exclusive. |
| Chinese Dominant Traditions (Confucian / Daoist / Folk) | Highest-risk collision for this doctrine: 我与父原为一 (10:30) could easily be softened toward Confucian relational-harmony language (和, hé — cooperative concord between two distinct, hierarchically related parties, as in the ideal father-son or ruler-minister relationship) rather than shared divine being. This is a near-automatic drift risk in Mandarin, since 合/和 vocabulary for “unity” defaults to relational-harmony readings in everyday usage. Must also be distinguished from the derivative, relational (not ontological) unity of believers described in John 17. |
| Secular | Reads these statements as later church doctrinal formulation (a historical-critical view of “high Johannine Christology” as later theological development) or as poetic expressions of Jesus’s felt intimacy with God, not literal ontological claims. |
Agreement: Full agreement among Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions on ontological unity within the Trinity. Divergence: direct rejection by Judaism and Islam on strict-monotheism grounds; a conceptual but non-equivalent parallel in Hindu Advaita non-dualism. Misunderstandings a translation must not invite: presenting the unity as mere relational harmony or agreement (Confucian 和 collision); equating it with Hindu Atman-Brahman non-dual identity (which is diffusable to all beings, not unique to the Son); conflating it with the derivative unity of believers in John 17. Sensitive terminology: 我与父原为一, 合而为一, 父.
Section 10 — Master List of Sensitive Terminology (Cross-Doctrine)
| Mandarin Term | Doctrine(s) | Primary Cross-Tradition Risk |
|---|---|---|
| 道 | Deity/Pre-existence of Christ, Seven “I Am” Statements | Daoist impersonal cosmic principle; Confucian “the right way” |
| 独生子 | Sonship of Christ, God’s Love for the World | Modern demographic term 独生子女 (only-child policy) |
| 重生 | New Birth and Regeneration | Secular “life turnaround”; Buddhist 轮回 |
| 永生 | Eternal Life through Faith | Daoist physical-immortality cultivation (长生不老) |
| 复活 | Substitutionary Death and Resurrection | Buddhist 轮回/投胎; folk 还魂 |
| 审判 | Judgment and Belief/Unbelief | Folk-Buddhist/Daoist Ten Courts of Hell (十殿阎罗), 报应 |
| 保惠师 | Holy Spirit as Counselor | Folk ritual-intermediary 法师; ancestral spirit 祖灵 |
| 我与父原为一 / 合而为一 | Unity of the Father and the Son | Confucian relational-harmony (和) softening |
| 神的羔羊 | Substitutionary Death | Folk animal-sacrifice/appeasement ritual |
| 爱 | God’s Love for the World | Generic romantic/familial/patriotic love; folk blessing-favor (祈福) |
| 光 / 黑暗 | Judgment; Light and Darkness | Daoist yin-yang (阴阳) complementary cosmology |
| 道路、真理、生命 | Seven “I Am” Statements | Daoist “the Way” (via 道); religious-pluralist “one path among many” |
This master list should be cross-checked against 08_core_glossary.md Section 2 and assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json before any Phase 2 translation begins; all entries here already carry Critical or High risk designations in those documents and require Human Theologian review per the established routing.
This document extends but never contradicts the Romans baseline Language Package. Where a term or doctrine already exists in the baseline (e.g., 神, 圣灵, 复活, 恩典), this analysis defers to and reuses the baseline’s established comparative-theology reasoning rather than re-deriving it.