Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — Luke (Mandarin Destination)
This document analyzes how the eight core doctrines of the Luke curriculum (per curriculum_parameters) are interpreted across Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions, secular perspectives, and — as a dedicated column required by the destination culture — the Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist tradition that most Mandarin-speaking readers will bring to this material, whether or not they identify as religious. For each doctrine: a comparative table, areas of agreement and divergence, misunderstandings a translation must not invite, and sensitive terminology already flagged (or newly flagged here) for the Language Package.
All terminology decisions below must remain consistent with the baseline translation_memory.json and the Luke-specific doctrine_risk_registry.json / 08_core_glossary.md. This document does not introduce new Mandarin renderings; it documents why the existing renderings and forbidden substitutions were chosen, from a comparative-religions standpoint.
1. Jesus as Savior for All Nations and All People (Jew and Gentile, Rich and Poor)
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, extended to all who believe regardless of ethnicity or class; Luke’s inclusion of Gentiles, Samaritans, and tax collectors is read as programmatic evidence of the gospel’s universal offer. |
| Catholic | Affirms Christ’s universal salvific will; the Church is the universal (“catholic”) sign and instrument of that salvation, mediated through Scripture and sacrament; some room for salvation of those outside the visible Church through Christ’s grace. |
| Orthodox | Christ as universal Savior who restores and deifies (theosis) all humanity; emphasizes the cosmic scope of redemption and the liturgical gathering of “every nation” into the one Body, resisting any reduction to an individualistic transaction. |
| Jewish | Does not accept Jesus as Messiah/Savior; reads the universalist “light to the nations” impulse (echoing Isaiah) as continuous with existing Jewish prophetic ethics, without the christological fulfillment claim Luke makes. |
| Islamic | Honors Isa (Jesus) as a prophet/messenger to Israel but denies his divinity and any atoning, salvific death; salvation comes through submission to Allah and righteous deeds/mercy, not through a mediating savior figure. |
| Hindu | May assimilate Jesus as one enlightened teacher or avatar among many divine manifestations; salvation (moksha) is pursued through varied paths (jnana, bhakti, karma yoga); risk of syncretistic absorption of Jesus into a pluralistic pantheon of savior-figures. |
| Buddhist | No category for a personal savior-God; liberation (nirvana) is attained through one’s own practice following the Buddha’s path; devotional Buddhism’s merit-transferring bodhisattvas (e.g., Guanyin, Amitabha) offer only a partial, structurally different analogy. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Popular religion has patron deities, deified historical figures, and ancestor-intermediaries who rescue devotees within this life; 救主 risks being heard as one more powerful patron-protector alongside city gods or Guanyin, or as a benefactor whose favor is negotiated through ritual; Confucian tradition frames moral order through sage-kings and ritual propriety (礼) rather than personal salvation from sin. |
| Secular | Reads “savior” language as devotional/mythological; may value Luke’s inclusion of the marginalized as an early social-ethical program (proto-egalitarianism) without metaphysical commitment. |
Agreement: Broad recognition (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) of Christ’s unique, universal redemptive role; even traditions that reject the christological claim (Jewish, secular) commonly affirm the ethical value of Luke’s inclusive vision.
Divergence: The mechanism and exclusivity of salvation — grace alone (Protestant) vs. grace mediated through Church/sacrament (Catholic/Orthodox) vs. denial of Christ’s saviorhood (Jewish, Islamic) vs. no personal-savior category at all (Buddhist) vs. one savior among many (Hindu, folk-syncretistic risk).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 救主 must not be presented as a generic patron/protector deity comparable to Guanyin or a city god.
- Christ’s uniqueness must not be softened into “a savior among several” to accommodate a pluralistic Hindu or folk-religious framework.
- The “rich and poor” inclusion must not be read as a purely socio-economic leveling program divorced from personal reconciliation with God.
Sensitive terminology: 救主 (savior — risk of patron-deity collapse); 外邦人 (gentiles — historically loaded insider/outsider term, per Romans baseline).
2. The Holy Spirit’s Work in Salvation History
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Third Person of the Trinity, personally active throughout Luke — empowering the incarnation, Jesus’ ministry, and (proleptically) the church. |
| Catholic | Same Trinitarian personhood; additional devotional emphasis on the Spirit’s role in Mary’s fiat and the Church’s ongoing sacramental/charismatic life. |
| Orthodox | Strong pneumatology; the Spirit proceeds from the Father (a point of historic East-West difference over the Filioque); central to theosis and the Church’s continuous liturgical life. |
| Jewish | Ruach (Spirit of God) is God’s own active presence/power (creation, prophecy, empowerment) — not read as a distinct divine hypostasis; Luke’s personal, indwelling Spirit is seen as later theological development beyond OT categories. |
| Islamic | ”Holy Spirit” language is generally identified with the angel Gabriel (Jibril) or God’s creative command, not a distinct divine Person; any suggestion of multiple persons within God is firmly rejected (tawhid). |
| Hindu | May be assimilated to divine breath/prana or an impersonal cosmic Spirit (Brahman); risk of a pantheistic reading in which “Spirit” is universal divine essence pervading all things rather than a personal, distinct divine Person acting in history. |
| Buddhist | No creator-Spirit category; may be loosely likened to cosmic/karmic forces or (in folk Buddhism) spirit-beings, but without a personal, sovereign divine agent. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Extensive populated spirit-world — 祖灵 (ancestral spirits), 鬼神 (gods/ghosts), 气 (impersonal vital force); serious risk that 圣灵 is read as one spirit-being among many, invoked ritually, or as impersonal qi rather than the personal, sovereign third Person of the Trinity. |
| Secular | Treats “Spirit” language as symbolic — inspiration, conviction, moral motivation — without ontological claim to a personal divine agent. |
Agreement: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions broadly agree on the Spirit’s personal divine agency; most traditions recognize Luke depicts a distinctive empowering presence guiding key figures.
Divergence: Personhood and Trinitarian status of the Spirit — denied by Judaism and Islam, reinterpreted as impersonal force by Hinduism and much of Buddhism and Chinese folk religion.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 圣灵 must never be read as an ancestral spirit, nature spirit, or impersonal qi.
- The Spirit’s “coming upon” Mary, Jesus, and the disciples must not be described in language resembling folk spirit-possession trance.
Sensitive terminology: 圣灵 (Critical, per baseline); forbidden associations: 附身/附体 (spirit possession), 祖灵.
3. Good News to the Poor and Marginalized
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Central Lukan emphasis, addressing both spiritual and (in many readings) literal material poverty; interpretive range spans a primarily spiritual reading to strong social-justice readings that see structural change as a gospel entailment. |
| Catholic | Preferential option for the poor (especially post-Vatican II social teaching); Luke’s poor are addressed both materially and spiritually; grounds much of the Church’s corporal-works-of-mercy tradition. |
| Orthodox | Almsgiving, hospitality, and voluntary poverty (monastic tradition) as spiritual disciplines; Christ’s identification with the poor read through kenotic (self-emptying) Christology. |
| Jewish | Continuous with OT prophetic tradition (Isaiah, Amos) demanding care for the poor, widow, orphan, and stranger (tzedakah); Luke’s ethic is seen as an extension of, not a departure from, Torah and prophetic concern. |
| Islamic | Zakat (obligatory almsgiving) and care for the poor are pillars of practice; broadly compatible ethical resonance, without accepting Luke’s christological ground. |
| Hindu | Charitable giving (dāna) exists within dharmic ethics but is often intertwined with karma-based explanations of one’s present station; risk of reading poverty as karmic consequence rather than a status God specially and graciously addresses. |
| Buddhist | Compassion (karuna) for suffering beings, including the poor, is central, but the frame is alleviating dukkha (suffering) generally through detachment/enlightenment rather than covenantal grace reversing status before a personal God. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Confucian tradition ties care for the poor to the ruler’s/gentleman’s moral duty (仁政, benevolent governance), not to gracious divine initiative; folk religion frequently reads poverty through 报应 (karmic retribution across a family’s fortune or lineage) — precisely the reading this doctrine must resist. |
| Secular | Reads Luke’s concern for the poor as an early social-ethical/proto-egalitarian statement; historically susceptible to enlistment in purely political-economic ideology (e.g., 20th-century Chinese “class struggle” readings) divorced from its theological ground. |
Agreement: Nearly all traditions affirm care for the poor as a moral good, often institutionalized in their own almsgiving/charity practices.
Divergence: The theological ground and mechanism — grace-initiated divine action (Christian) vs. karmic explanation (Hindu, Buddhist, folk) vs. ruler’s moral duty (Confucian) vs. covenant law (Jewish) vs. religious pillar (Islamic) vs. political ideology (secular).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 贫穷 must not be read as karmic desert (报应) or an ascetic achievement.
- 有福了 must not suggest worldly luck/fortune (福) now attaches to the poor in a materialistic sense.
- The doctrine must not be flattened into secular class-conflict rhetoric.
Sensitive terminology: 贫穷的人, 有福了, 财主 (loaded with 20th-century class-struggle connotations).
4. Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Repentance (turning from sin to God) and forgiveness are received by grace through faith, not earned; tightly paired with justification; no priestly mediation required, though heartfelt confession to God is emphasized. |
| Catholic | Repentance is ideally sealed through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession, absolution, penance); God’s grace is the ultimate source, but sacramental/priestly mediation and a satisfaction (penance) dimension are retained. |
| Orthodox | Repentance (metanoia) is an ongoing transformative reorientation of the whole person, not merely episodic; confession before a spiritual father is customary; forgiveness is tied to restored communion and healing rather than a primarily forensic transaction. |
| Jewish | Teshuvah (repentance/return) is central (especially at Yom Kippur) — sincere turning, restitution, and God’s mercy secure forgiveness directly, with no mediating atoning death required. |
| Islamic | Tawbah (repentance) — sincere turning to Allah with intent not to repeat the sin — results in forgiveness through Allah’s mercy; strong emphasis on divine mercy responding directly to repentance, with no atoning-death requirement. |
| Hindu | Wrongdoing is generally linked to karma; “forgiveness” is less a legal pardon than working out or mitigating karmic consequence through ritual, devotion (bhakti), or (in some traditions) divine grace overriding karma. |
| Buddhist | No sin against a personal God to be forgiven; unwholesome actions (akusala kamma) generate karmic results addressed through purification practice and monastic confession as an ethical/psychological reset, not relational forgiveness from a personal God. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Folk religion frames wrongdoing through 报应 (karmic retribution across fortune/lineage), remedied through ritual (ancestor rites, temple confession) or merit-accumulation (功德/阴德); Confucian tradition frames moral failure primarily as a breach of social/relational duty corrected through self-cultivation and restored ritual propriety (礼), not primarily as an offense against a personal transcendent God. |
| Secular | May read “repentance” as psychological/moral self-correction and “forgiveness” as an interpersonal process, without reference to God or objective guilt before a transcendent judge. |
Agreement: Virtually all traditions affirm that wrongdoing requires some corrective response (turning, ritual, restitution) and that reconciliation or relief is possible.
Divergence: Whether forgiveness requires a mediating atoning sacrifice (Christian traditions) vs. direct divine mercy upon repentance (Jewish, Islamic) vs. karmic self-managed consequence (Hindu, Buddhist, folk) vs. social-relational repair (Confucian) vs. psychological process (secular).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 悔改 must never render as 忏悔 (Buddhist merit-reducing ritual confession) nor collapse into mere regret (后悔).
- The tax collector’s plea (Luke 18:13, 开恩可怜我) must not read as an appeal to a merit ledger.
- Forgiveness in Luke must be taught as God’s gracious verdict secured through Christ, not a negotiated outcome of ritual or self-cultivation.
Sensitive terminology: 悔改, 赦免, 释放 (ἄφεσις wordplay), 开恩可怜; forbidden: 功德, 阴德.
5. Prayer and Dependence on God
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Direct, unmediated access to God the Father through Christ, enabled by the Spirit; Luke’s portrait of Jesus’ persistent, dependent prayer life is paradigmatic; no required ritual formula or intermediary. |
| Catholic | Affirms direct address to God but also values the intercession of saints and Mary as secondary prayer partners; liturgical/structured prayer (echoing Luke’s canticles — Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis) holds a central devotional place. |
| Orthodox | Prayer as communion with God, especially through liturgy, the Jesus Prayer, and the intercession of saints/Theotokos; unceasing prayer as participation in divine life. |
| Jewish | Structured daily prayer (Amidah, Shema) addressed directly to God; Luke’s persistent-prayer emphasis echoes synagogue and Temple prayer traditions, with no required mediating figure. |
| Islamic | Salat (five daily prescribed prayers) and du’a (personal supplication) addressed directly to Allah, with no intermediary (tawhid); strong resonance with Luke’s persistent, humble petition, though the theological ground (submission) differs from filial “Abba” intimacy. |
| Hindu | Prayer/worship (puja, mantra, japa) often directed to a chosen deity (ishta-devata) through varied ritual forms and priestly assistance; petitionary prayer coexists with contemplative techniques aimed at self-realization. |
| Buddhist | Strict philosophical Buddhism has no creator-God to petition; devotional Buddhism (Pure Land, folk practice) involves petitionary chanting to Buddhas/bodhisattvas for aid; meditation is oriented toward insight rather than relational address. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Extensive petitionary ritual practice — 烧香拜拜 (incense offerings), 求签 (fortune-stick divination), 问卜 (consulting diviners), ancestor veneration — typically transactional/technique-based, seeking favor or guidance through ritual correctness rather than relational trust in a covenant-keeping personal Father. |
| Secular | May read prayer as a psychological coping mechanism or symbolic expression of aspiration, without ontological claim that a personal God hears and responds. |
Agreement: Nearly universal recognition that petitionary/devotional address to the divine is a valued human practice; Jewish and Islamic traditions share particularly strong resonance with direct, unmediated address to God.
Divergence: Relational versus ritual-technique framing — personal Fatherly intimacy (“Abba”) vs. submission-based petition (Islamic) vs. mediated/multi-deity devotional practice (Hindu, folk) vs. non-theistic meditative practice (strict Buddhism).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 祷告 must never be assimilated to 求签/问卜/烧香拜拜 ritual-technique patterns.
- Prayer must not be presented as a means of accumulating merit or manipulating fate.
- Gethsemane’s prayer (22:39-46) must retain genuine relational struggle and submission to a personal Father’s will, not stoic fatalism.
Sensitive terminology: 祷告, 代求, 阿爸父; forbidden: 求签, 问卜, 烧香拜拜.
6. The Kingdom of God Present and Future
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | God’s reign inaugurated in Jesus’ person/ministry (already) and consummated at his return (not yet); Luke 4:21’s “today” and 17:21’s “in your midst” emphasize present inbreaking through Christ’s own presence and mission. |
| Catholic | The Kingdom is present proleptically in the Church as sacrament/sign, moving toward eschatological fullness; strong institutional-ecclesial dimension. |
| Orthodox | The Kingdom is experienced now especially in the liturgy (a foretaste of the eschatological banquet), moving toward final theosis/cosmic transfiguration. |
| Jewish | Traditional messianic hope anticipates a future, this-worldly kingdom of justice and peace under God’s rule, often tied to national restoration; Luke’s “already” claim is precisely the point of historic Jewish-Christian disagreement over messianic timing and nature. |
| Islamic | No exact “Kingdom of God” doctrine; the broadly resonant concept is the eschatological Day of Judgment and Allah’s ultimate justice, established through a future divine reckoning rather than a present inaugurated reign in a person. |
| Hindu | No close structural equivalent to a linear historical kingdom; cosmology tends toward cyclical ages (yugas) and an impersonal cosmic order (dharma) rather than a personal king’s reign breaking into and consummating history once. |
| Buddhist | No creator-king reigning over history; the closest analogy (the future advent of Maitreya in some traditions) is a future figure within a recurring cosmological cycle, not a present-and-future reign of a personal God already inaugurated. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Classical political theology frames legitimate rule through 天命 (Mandate of Heaven) and cyclical dynastic rise-and-fall (治乱循环); “kingdom” language risks being heard as a this-worldly political/dynastic claim — a risk sharpened by historical millenarian movements (e.g., the Taiping Rebellion) that invoked Christian-inflected “kingdom” language for political ends. |
| Secular | May read “Kingdom of God” as a symbol for a hoped-for just social order or ethical ideal to be pursued through human effort, without supernatural or eschatological claim. |
Agreement: Multiple traditions share hope for an eventual divine/just order (messianic age, Day of Judgment, ethical ideal); concern for this-worldly justice resonates broadly.
Divergence: Whether the Kingdom is already inaugurated in a specific historical person (a distinctively Christian claim) versus purely future (Jewish, Islamic) or cyclical/impersonal (Hindu, Buddhist) or immanent/ethical only (secular).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 神的国 must not be read as a this-worldly political/dynastic claim echoing 天命 or historical Chinese millenarian movements.
- Luke 17:21’s “in your midst” must not collapse into an individualist inward-mystical reading (内观).
- Both the “already” (in Christ’s person and ministry) and “not yet” (future consummation) must be retained without collapsing either pole.
Sensitive terminology: 神的国, 神的国就在你们中间 (Critical ambiguity); forbidden: 天下, 王朝, 天命 (as noun alone).
7. The Cost and Joy of Discipleship
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Following Christ requires total, costly allegiance (deny self, take up cross, forsake competing loyalties including family and possessions) yielding deep joy rooted in relationship with Christ and kingdom participation. |
| Catholic | Discipleship is also expressed through vocational states (religious life, vows of poverty/chastity/obedience) as a heightened form of the call; joy is linked to communion with Christ and the Church’s sacramental life. |
| Orthodox | Discipleship as ascetic struggle (podvig) toward theosis; the monastic tradition takes Luke’s radical sayings (renouncing family, possessions) as a heightened calling; joy is found in participation in divine life through disciplined self-denial. |
| Jewish | No direct parallel category, though the demand for wholehearted covenant loyalty (Shema — love God with all heart, soul, might) and costly faithfulness under persecution shares structural resonance; Jewish tradition does not read Jesus’ specific sayings as binding. |
| Islamic | Jihad (in its broad spiritual sense of struggle) and total submission (islam = submission) to Allah’s will parallel the language of costly total allegiance; the object of allegiance and the relational “joy” framing differ significantly. |
| Hindu | Renunciation (sannyasa) and detachment from worldly ties (family, possessions) for spiritual liberation is well-developed (cf. Bhagavad Gita); the goal is self-realization/moksha via disciplined effort, not relational allegiance to a personal Savior. |
| Buddhist | Monastic renunciation of family and possessions for the path to liberation is central and structurally resembles Luke’s radical sayings; the driving logic is escape from attachment/craving through self-effort, not costly love-allegiance to a divine Lord. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Confucian ethics places filial piety (孝) as a paramount, non-negotiable duty; Luke 14:26’s “hate father and mother,” taken literally, would represent an almost unthinkable violation of Confucian social order; Daoist renunciation of worldly ties offers a partial structural analogy but lacks the relational-allegiance-to-a-person dimension. |
| Secular | May admire the ethical seriousness of total commitment to a cause or ideal, comparable to secular calls for self-sacrificial commitment to a movement, without transcendent reference or ultimate joy grounded in a personal God. |
Agreement: Many traditions recognize some category of costly renunciation or total commitment for a higher good; ascetic/monastic parallels exist across Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Divergence: The object and ground of the demand (relational allegiance to Christ vs. impersonal liberation-technique vs. filial-social duty vs. submission to divine law) and the character of the resulting “joy” (relational communion vs. cessation of craving vs. social harmony).
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- The “hate” idiom (14:26) must never be rendered with literal 恨, which would collide catastrophically with 孝 (filial piety).
- 舍己 (deny self) must not be assimilated to the Buddhist doctrine of 无我 (no-self).
- Joy in discipleship must be taught as relational (communion with Christ), not as the cessation of craving.
Sensitive terminology: 舍己, 背起十字架, 门徒, the “hate” idiom (14:26), 孝.
8. Jesus’ Compassion and Table Fellowship with Sinners
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Jesus’ eating with tax collectors and sinners embodies grace reaching the unworthy before any moral change; compassion flows from God’s character revealed in Christ, offered freely and prior to repentance. |
| Catholic | Table fellowship anticipates and grounds the Church’s sacramental hospitality (the Eucharist as ongoing table fellowship with repentant sinners); recent papal emphasis on mercy toward the marginalized draws directly on these Lukan scenes. |
| Orthodox | Christ’s table fellowship read through a therapeutic/healing lens — sharing a meal with the “sick” (sinners) as the Physician bringing healing communion, foreshadowing the Eucharistic banquet as medicine for the soul. |
| Jewish | Some contemporary Pharisaic groups avoided table fellowship with the ritually impure or those in sinful trades (e.g., tax-farming for Rome); Luke’s Jesus is read by Jewish scholars as a genuinely controversial figure within intra-Jewish social-purity debate, not as an attack on Judaism itself. |
| Islamic | Allah’s mercy (rahma) toward repentant sinners is strongly affirmed, and hospitality is a highly valued virtue; however, deliberately dining with the irreligious as a programmatic sign of grace prior to repentance is not a parallel emphasis. |
| Hindu | Commensality (who may eat with whom) has historically been tied to caste purity codes in many contexts; Jesus’ deliberate table fellowship across purity/status boundaries offers a structurally provocative modern comparative parallel, though not an original Hindu theological category. |
| Buddhist | The Buddha’s own openness to receiving alms from and teaching all castes offers a partial structural parallel (compassion without status distinction), grounded in universal compassion (karuna) for suffering beings generally, not the specific dynamic of a personal God’s grace to morally guilty sinners. |
| Chinese Folk / Confucian-Daoist (destination) | Chinese banquet culture carries strong hierarchical seating protocols and face (面子) dynamics — who sits where and who is invited signals social status and moral respectability; Jesus’ shared meals with tax collectors and “sinners” would register as a scandalous breach of social propriety and loss of face — precisely the point, but this must be taught as deliberate structural grace, not poor social judgment to be smoothed over. |
| Secular | May read these episodes as an early example of radical social inclusion, admirable as a model of egalitarian hospitality, without reference to sin, repentance, or divine grace. |
Agreement: Broad cross-traditional appreciation for hospitality, mercy toward the outcast, and challenging unjust social exclusion.
Divergence: Whether table fellowship is (a) grace offered prior to and enabling repentance (distinctively Christian claim) versus (b) a reward/response to repentance already accomplished, versus (c) an admirable ethic of universal compassion without a personal-God/sin framework.
Misunderstandings a translation must not invite:
- 怜悯 must never be rendered 慈悲 (the Buddhist virtue flowing from enlightened detachment).
- Table fellowship scenes must not be smoothed into generic “good manners” or read as Jesus losing face/status.
- The scandal (breach of purity/status boundaries) must be retained as a deliberate, structural act of divine grace.
Sensitive terminology: 怜悯 (forbidden: 慈悲), 同席/一同吃饭, 面子, 罪人, 税吏.
Cross-Doctrine Summary
| Cross-cutting risk | Doctrines affected | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Karma/merit-ledger substitution (功德, 阴德, 报应) | Good News to the Poor; Repentance and Forgiveness; Table Fellowship | Never allow grace, forgiveness, or Jesus’ acceptance of the poor/sinful to be read as a merit-accounting transaction. |
| Impersonal cosmic force/fate substitution (天命, 天意, 气) | Kingdom of God; Holy Spirit’s Work; Prayer | Retain the personal, relational, historically particular character of God’s action against impersonal fatalistic or cosmological readings. |
| Filial-piety / social-hierarchy collision (孝, 面子) | Cost and Joy of Discipleship; Table Fellowship | Preserve the intended shock of Jesus’ radical sayings and practices without literalizing language (e.g., “hate”) in ways that produce an unintended, catastrophic cultural collision. |
| Ritual-technique substitution (求签, 问卜, 烧香拜拜, 忏悔, 斋戒净身) | Prayer and Dependence on God; Repentance and Forgiveness; Baptism (Section A, doctrine 27) | Distinguish relational, grace-based practices from technique-based, transactional folk-ritual practices throughout. |
| Political/dynastic substitution (天下, 王朝, 天命, 治乱循环) | Kingdom of God; Messianic Promise (Section A, doctrine 10) | Retain the spiritual, already/not-yet, linear-historical character of the Kingdom and messianic fulfillment against political or cyclical-dynastic reframing. |
This document must be read alongside 08_core_glossary.md and 11_doctrine_analysis.md for the Luke curriculum, and never in contradiction to the Romans baseline (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json, 12_ai_translation_requirements.md).