"We three Kings from Orient are,
Tried to smoke a rubber cigar!
It was loaded
It explo-o-ded
Tra la la la la la"
and
"When shepherds washed their socks by night" - can't remember the rest.
And then I grew up, and became a Christian. :cool:
I remember it as;
While shepherds washed
Their socks by night
All seated on the ground
The angel of the Lord came down
And nicked the blooming lot.
or something like.
Oddly enough I don't think I joined in. Perhaps because my voice was so bad I was always told not to sing at all in assembly; just mime. :D
While shepherds washed
Their socks by night
All seated on the ground
The angel of the Lord came down
And nicked the blooming lot.
or something like.
Oddly enough I don't think I joined in. Perhaps because my voice was so bad I was always told not to sing at all in assembly; just mime. :D
I always knew the Washed their socks one
The biggest crime is Vanarama's version of "Sing Hosanna". :D:D
Why can't it be a given that all (I would say most to be on the safe side) mainstream churches agree on the central tenets?
That's circular reasoning. The question here is whether a certain view is a central tenet. It's question-begging to say it's a central tenet because the mainstream churches all agree, and then assume it is a central tenet as a reason for thinking they all agree. Nothing in that shows it's a central tenet.
There's loads of stuff out there so yes, definitely google away if this is something of interest to you.
I don't think that finding random web pages that contain phrases like "died for our sins" is a good way to discover what, if anything, mainstream churches agree on in that area.
It's pretty standard stuff, people voicing opinions on a discussion forum. I think people get different things out of it so I don't think there is just one point to posting. I think, from memory, when I posted that I was on hold having a bit of a wait, so the point for me was killing a bit of time. Why is this important? Why are you posting right now?
I didn't say it wasn't an opinion, or that there's anything wrong or unusual about posting opinions. I just wanted to know if your opinion was that Christians believed it was "a staged and pretend sacrifice".
...
Anyway, it doesn't look like you and I are going to be able to have a productive discussion, so I suggest we end it here.
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
I don't see that as trying to tell Christians "that's what what you really believe".
How is that an example of describing Christ's sacrifice in a way that makes it sound grotesque, so that it's relevant to what I said?
That's a more than reasonable question. Especially since some Christians tend to talk like that too. It is what is called the docetic heresy - the belief that Christ was not fully human and did not really suffer in the way an ordinary human would.
I think my criticism only comes when that issue is not just expressed as a question but used as a lampoon.
I think it's questionable to say Christians talk like that, when your example is heretical.
That's circular reasoning. The question here is whether a certain view is a central tenet. It's question-begging to say it's a central tenet because the mainstream churches all agree, and then assume it is a central tenet as a reason for thinking they all agree. Nothing in that shows it's a central tenet.
Well if mainstream churches agree on a central tenet then I'm happy to accept that whatever is a central tenet.
But let me clarify - are you arguing that god sending Jesus to die for our sins in not a central tenet of Christianity? If so, why do you think so?
I don't think that finding random web pages that contain phrases like "died for our sins" is a good way to discover what, if anything, mainstream churches agree on in that area.
Like I said, lots of information out there if it's a particular interest if yours.
I didn't say it wasn't an opinion, or that there's anything wrong or unusual about posting opinions. I just wanted to know if your opinion was that Christians believed it was "a staged and pretend sacrifice".
No, of course it's not my opinion that Christians believe this. Nothing I posted even vaguely suggests that.
...
Anyway, it doesn't look like you and I are going to be able to have a productive discussion, so I suggest we end it here.
Yes I would concur with much of that. Dennett's position perhaps illustrates the very different position of religion and Christianity in particular in the US as distinct from its status in the UK.
Those arguments about the difficulties of teaching the 'facts' about religions must of course already apply in countries like the UK which do attempt to 'teach' religion. I suspect much of what we call RE often 'teaches' a lot more 'facts'. I guess the clue is it is called Religious Education and not Education about Religions.
Yes, RE in the UK does currently teach the 'facts' about all of the main religions - though I'm still uncomfortable that we have to teach the facts about what logically must be at least 99% fiction. My hope is that one day religion will be taught as part of History, instead of having a whole separate lesson dedicated to it.
This/our RE method is obviously far preferable to teaching only one religion in that it teaches children that there are options, but my concern here is that it could appear to give children a set of options that they have to choose from. (ok kids, here are the religions but we have picked the one we like best and this is the one we force you to worship in assembly).
There doesn't appear to be a strong enough message that there is an alternative - no religious affiliation whatsoever.
When my Daughter was around the age of 6, she came home from school and asked me "What religion are we?".
This concerned me because somehow she came away from school with the idea that she/we must belong to a religion. She also came to the idea that if we did have a religion, then our family must be united in this one single belief.
Though it goes against my better judgement to have to label 'non-belief', I feel there is a need for a label - one that has it's own rights and one that can be used in Primary education.
I would also like this 'non-belief' to be taught alongside other religions in RE as a counter-argument, as another 'option'.
I know that appears to be madness but It's not getting through to children that non-belief is an option, and covering it in separate lessons such as Citizenship is clearly not succeeding in sending out this message to them.
I've read that "Children are more susceptible to proselytisation when they have no religious education whatsoever". If this is so, then teaching non-belief as a belief would also help to guard against this.
I'm thinking something along the lines of this: In three of Australia's Primary schools they are starting something called 'The Community of Ethical Inquiry' which aims to develop "ethical understanding and clear thinking".
"Starting in term three of 2014, primary students from three Victorian state schools will ponder these sorts of questions in a trial of a new after-hours class that could one day form a secular alternative to the controversial program of weekly special religious instruction."
That's circular reasoning. The question here is whether a certain view is a central tenet. It's question-begging to say it's a central tenet because the mainstream churches all agree, and then assume it is a central tenet as a reason for thinking they all agree. Nothing in that shows it's a central tenet.
,,,.
Don't know about all this circular reasoning stuff. Hows about agreeing the Nicene Creed is a central tenet of Christianity* because it is? Is that too simple?
*Recognised I understand by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and the great majority of Protestant denominations. From wiki admittedly.
You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.
So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.
I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.
I'm trying to understand why you think it's heretical, but also why and whether mainstream denominations such a the C of E regard it as heretical.
Do you just mean that you regard it as heretical? If you mean (or include) the C of E as regarding it as heresy, because of the Nicene Creed, then I think that requires at least the following:
* The C of E regards divergence from the Nicene Creed as heretical
* In so doing, the C of E uses a sufficiently literal interpretation of that part of the Nicene Creed.
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I'm a bit about that reply to the bold above.
That from Matthew doesn't say it wasn't a virgin birth. It doesn't say Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was conceived or even that she wasn't when he was born.
On the other hand, Matthew 1:25 does look like a problem for the view that Mary remained a virgin ever after -- a view of the Roman Catholic church and even some Protestants. The Catholic argument on that point seems to be this one (under "Until Then").
That from Matthew doesn't say it wasn't a virgin birth. It doesn't say Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was conceived or even that she wasn't when he was born.
On the other hand, Matthew 1:25 does look like a problem for the view that Mary remained a virgin ever after -- a view of the Roman Catholic church and even some Protestants. The Catholic argument on that point seems to be this one (under "Until Then").
I'll raise you
Matthew 1:23 then
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
Mary being a virgin was already covered by Matthew.
I have recently noted that Dan (Horseman of the Apocalypse) Dennett advocates introducing religious education is US schools. His argument is based on informed consent in a democracy and countering ignorance of religion etc.
Dennett hope is that, when children are presented with the variety of religions and the fact that each has a set of adherents who say that theirs is true and all others is false, that they will realize there is nothing ‘special’ about any one religion. There is no reason to pick one and say, “This contains the absolute truth,” because “that religion over there” is being defended in exactly the same way.
Strange isn't it that Christianity has done all this so-called controlling, but no other religion (including yours, I presume ) has done so.
From one old cynic to another.
Sorry Nettie.:( I will now pass the buck to my naughty Dad who first put that thought in my head. I thought it was quite feasible as there is diddly squat in the Bible about RC's rule, non use of birth control. Why? This guy may have the answer.:o
Don't know about all this circular reasoning stuff. Hows about agreeing the Nicene Creed is a central tenet of Christianity* because it is? Is that too simple?
*Recognised I understand by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and the great majority of Protestant denominations. From wiki admittedly.
As I mentioned earlier, the Nicene Creed doesn't say anything about sin until it finally gets to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". (Some versions says "remission of sins".) When talking directly about what Christ did, it just says "For us men and for our salvation" and "For our sake". It leaves an awful lot open.
I also think it is in a way too simple, because it's not clear (at least not to me) how various denominations currently regard the Creed. Is it mean to be seen as a set of literal facts members of the church are meant to sign up to, or is it (for instance) seen more symbolically, either in meaning or in its role in worship?
And what about the "and the Son" part that divides Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic? The Anglican church seems to regard it as optional, and I wonder how many people really understand what that part of the Creed is about. What does it mean to proceed from the Father?
It may further help to know that there is a “mainstream” collection of views about him. The mainstream consists of agreement on major points about the life and character of Jesus, with considerable allowance for significant disagreement on lesser issues. Among the contributors to this approach have been both Geza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen in works written before those under review.
I think that it is an important difference that highlights that concepts are not just "mainstream" or "fringe."
Another atheist, Nick Clegg - who said yesterday that it is 'flippin' obvious that we are a Christian nation' in response to another small group of atheists saying it isn't - today says that HM The Queen should no longer be head of the Church of England. Err - the Queen isn't head of the C of E, you numpty! Christ is the head of the Church. HM The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Big difference.
The Prime Minister immediately rejected Mr Clegg’s call to disestablish the Church, saying that the proposal was “not a Conservative one” and will not be implemented by the Government.
Nick Clegg: the most ineffective person we have ever had in government, and whose days as an MP are numbered imho. Hint: General Election 2015.
As I understand it, the Act of Supremacy of 1534 said that Henry VIII was Supreme Head of the C of E. It was repealed under Mary I. After Elizabeth I became Queen, the Act of Supremacy of 1558 gave her the title Supreme Governor rather than Supreme Head.
I have seen various reasons given for the change in wording. One is that, as you say, it's Christ who's meant to be Head of the Church. Another is that it's because it was felt it was inappropriate for a woman to be head of the church.
As I mentioned earlier, the Nicene Creed doesn't say anything about sin until it finally gets to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". (Some versions says "remission of sins".) When talking directly about what Christ did, it just says "For us men and for our salvation" and "For our sake". It leaves an awful lot open.
I also think it is in a way too simple, because it's not clear (at least not to me) how various denominations currently regard the Creed. Is it mean to be seen as a set of literal facts members of the church are meant to sign up to, or is it (for instance) seen more symbolically, either in meaning or in its role in worship?
And what about the "and the Son" part that divides Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic? The Anglican church seems to regard it as optional, and I wonder how many people really understand what that part of the Creed is about. What does it mean to proceed from the Father?
No doubt there can be some considerable differences in readings but it appears to me there are some fairly important shared premises. For instance; and I may be going out on a limb here; but I would take a wild guess that almost all Christians regard Christ as the Son of God and that for some reason he was sacrificed in a very unpleasant way.
You're asking the wrong person here. I have no idea how roughly the text was translated. Why would it be metaphorical? Sex is a natural urge but I do know of Catholic women who refuse to have sex after menopause sets in as they can't conceive any longer??? Translation may explain such a glaring disparity. I also don't understand transubstantiation or the no contraception rule which seems to divide Catholics and Anglicans. Neither seem to have any Biblical connection.
I think, for whatever reason, (some) Catholics believe that contraception is bad because it's effectively "killing" a foetus before it's conceived. This doesn't make sense to me at all, but it does to some people.
As for transubstantiation... I have no idea where that idea came from. I doubt many people believe in it anyway (they just pretend to). The belief that you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus is more insane than Creationism.
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to describe the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the communion service), and specifically in the consecrated bread and wine, by using some Aristotelian metaphysics that I don't think many now quite understand. (Were there ever many who understood it?) There's also a question of how "body" and "blood" are meant to be understood in that context.
As transubstantiation sees it, the "substance" of the bread and win have become the body and blood of Christ, while the "accidents" -- everything perceptible to the senses -- remain those of bread and wine (but not as an illusion). And it's Christ as a whole that's present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the bread and wine. (It's not even divided up so it's body in bread and blood in wine, which is why it's enough to receive communion in only one "kind", usually just bread.)
The Eastern Orthodox view is at least very similar. Luther had a view called "sacramental union" which is evidently meant to be different from something called "consubstantiation", which is also different from transubstantiation and not to be confused with "consubstantial" (which is about the relationship between the persons of the Trinity).
Getting one's head around such ideas is difficult, to say the least, and a big problem is just trying to understand what "substance" is supposed to mean. It's a term that was once much used in philosophy, but I'm not sure anyone but specialists in historical metaphysics would spend much time on it nowadays.
No doubt there can be some considerable differences in readings but it appears to me there are some fairly important shared premises. For instance; and I may be going out on a limb here; but I would take a wild guess that almost all Christians regard Christ as the Son of God and that for some reason he was sacrificed in a very unpleasant way.
So where are you going with that? In any case, I don't see how "shared premises" are derived, given the problem of how literally the Creed is meant to be understood, and the issue of whether church members are meant to treat is as a set of beliefs they're meant to sign up to, or in some other way.
Also, why do you say "sacrificed" when the Nicene Creed just says "crucified", without indicating that it's to be understood as a sacrifice?
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to describe the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the communion service), and specifically in the consecrated bread and wine, by using some Aristotelian metaphysics that I don't think many now quite understand. (Were there ever many who understood it?) There's also a question of how "body" and "blood" are meant to be understood in that context.
As transubstantiation sees it, the "substance" of the bread and win have become the body and blood of Christ, while the "accidents" -- everything perceptible to the senses -- remain those of bread and wine (but not as an illusion). And it's Christ as a whole that's present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the bread and wine. (It's not even divided up so it's body in bread and blood in wine, which is why it's enough to receive communion in only one "kind", usually just bread.)
The Eastern Orthodox view is at least very similar. Luther had a view called "sacramental union" which is evidently meant to be different from something called "consubstantiation", which is also different from transubstantiation and not to be confused with "consubstantial" (which is about the relationship between the persons of the Trinity).
Getting one's head around such ideas is difficult, to say the least, and a big problem is just trying to understand what "substance" is supposed to mean. It's a term that was once much used in philosophy, but I'm not sure anyone but specialists in historical metaphysics would spend much time on it nowadays.
Thanks for you reply Veri. I had read that already and there doesn't seem to be any making sense of it for me. It seems to be a whole lot of palaver by the RC Church , to represent something inherently simple. Christ said to do this "In remembrance of Him"
He also said when two or three are gathered together in His name he is there with them. Not that he was only present when they drank and ate.
Comments
I was a bad lass, LOT.
I remember it as;
While shepherds washed
Their socks by night
All seated on the ground
The angel of the Lord came down
And nicked the blooming lot.
or something like.
Oddly enough I don't think I joined in. Perhaps because my voice was so bad I was always told not to sing at all in assembly; just mime.
I always knew the Washed their socks one
The biggest crime is Vanarama's version of "Sing Hosanna".
Do they know that absolutely 100% though?
And would that mean only non believers can truly sacrifice their lives, having little or no hope of anything beyond this one?
That's circular reasoning. The question here is whether a certain view is a central tenet. It's question-begging to say it's a central tenet because the mainstream churches all agree, and then assume it is a central tenet as a reason for thinking they all agree. Nothing in that shows it's a central tenet.
I don't think that finding random web pages that contain phrases like "died for our sins" is a good way to discover what, if anything, mainstream churches agree on in that area.
I didn't say it wasn't an opinion, or that there's anything wrong or unusual about posting opinions. I just wanted to know if your opinion was that Christians believed it was "a staged and pretend sacrifice".
...
Anyway, it doesn't look like you and I are going to be able to have a productive discussion, so I suggest we end it here.
How is that an example of describing Christ's sacrifice in a way that makes it sound grotesque, so that it's relevant to what I said?
I think it's questionable to say Christians talk like that, when your example is heretical.
Well if mainstream churches agree on a central tenet then I'm happy to accept that whatever is a central tenet.
But let me clarify - are you arguing that god sending Jesus to die for our sins in not a central tenet of Christianity? If so, why do you think so?
Like I said, lots of information out there if it's a particular interest if yours.
No, of course it's not my opinion that Christians believe this. Nothing I posted even vaguely suggests that.
Ok.
Yes, RE in the UK does currently teach the 'facts' about all of the main religions - though I'm still uncomfortable that we have to teach the facts about what logically must be at least 99% fiction. My hope is that one day religion will be taught as part of History, instead of having a whole separate lesson dedicated to it.
This/our RE method is obviously far preferable to teaching only one religion in that it teaches children that there are options, but my concern here is that it could appear to give children a set of options that they have to choose from. (ok kids, here are the religions but we have picked the one we like best and this is the one we force you to worship in assembly).
There doesn't appear to be a strong enough message that there is an alternative - no religious affiliation whatsoever.
When my Daughter was around the age of 6, she came home from school and asked me "What religion are we?".
This concerned me because somehow she came away from school with the idea that she/we must belong to a religion. She also came to the idea that if we did have a religion, then our family must be united in this one single belief.
Though it goes against my better judgement to have to label 'non-belief', I feel there is a need for a label - one that has it's own rights and one that can be used in Primary education.
I would also like this 'non-belief' to be taught alongside other religions in RE as a counter-argument, as another 'option'.
I know that appears to be madness but It's not getting through to children that non-belief is an option, and covering it in separate lessons such as Citizenship is clearly not succeeding in sending out this message to them.
I've read that "Children are more susceptible to proselytisation when they have no religious education whatsoever". If this is so, then teaching non-belief as a belief would also help to guard against this.
I'm thinking something along the lines of this: In three of Australia's Primary schools they are starting something called 'The Community of Ethical Inquiry' which aims to develop "ethical understanding and clear thinking".
"Starting in term three of 2014, primary students from three Victorian state schools will ponder these sorts of questions in a trial of a new after-hours class that could one day form a secular alternative to the controversial program of weekly special religious instruction."
*Recognised I understand by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and the great majority of Protestant denominations. From wiki admittedly.
I'm trying to understand why you think it's heretical, but also why and whether mainstream denominations such a the C of E regard it as heretical.
Do you just mean that you regard it as heretical? If you mean (or include) the C of E as regarding it as heresy, because of the Nicene Creed, then I think that requires at least the following:
* The C of E regards divergence from the Nicene Creed as heretical
* In so doing, the C of E uses a sufficiently literal interpretation of that part of the Nicene Creed.
As those things actually the case?
I'm a bit
That from Matthew doesn't say it wasn't a virgin birth. It doesn't say Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was conceived or even that she wasn't when he was born.
On the other hand, Matthew 1:25 does look like a problem for the view that Mary remained a virgin ever after -- a view of the Roman Catholic church and even some Protestants. The Catholic argument on that point seems to be this one (under "Until Then").
I'll raise you
Matthew 1:23 then
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
Mary being a virgin was already covered by Matthew.
That's a video 24 minutes long. Is there any text that says just what he's proposing?
For instance, are children to be taught his sort of view of how religion came about?
According to this page
Sorry Nettie.:( I will now pass the buck to my naughty Dad who first put that thought in my head. I thought it was quite feasible as there is diddly squat in the Bible about RC's rule, non use of birth control. Why? This guy may have the answer.:o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
On my knees now praying for forgiveness.:D
Then you may have to help me out. Can you point to a description of Christ's sacrifice that is relevant to what you were saying?
As I mentioned earlier, the Nicene Creed doesn't say anything about sin until it finally gets to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". (Some versions says "remission of sins".) When talking directly about what Christ did, it just says "For us men and for our salvation" and "For our sake". It leaves an awful lot open.
I also think it is in a way too simple, because it's not clear (at least not to me) how various denominations currently regard the Creed. Is it mean to be seen as a set of literal facts members of the church are meant to sign up to, or is it (for instance) seen more symbolically, either in meaning or in its role in worship?
And what about the "and the Son" part that divides Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic? The Anglican church seems to regard it as optional, and I wonder how many people really understand what that part of the Creed is about. What does it mean to proceed from the Father?
Regarding mainstream, it is important to determine whether a person is talking of views or tenets.'
The concept that Jesus was half-divine, half human was decided by the Calcedonian council.
This became a tenet of many (but not all) churches.
There is a definition of what are "mainsteam" views of Jesus are, here, in a New York Review of Books article, In Quest of the Historical Jesus.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/nov/15/in-quest-of-the-historical-jesus/
and is described here:
It may further help to know that there is a “mainstream” collection of views about him. The mainstream consists of agreement on major points about the life and character of Jesus, with considerable allowance for significant disagreement on lesser issues. Among the contributors to this approach have been both Geza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen in works written before those under review.
I think that it is an important difference that highlights that concepts are not just "mainstream" or "fringe."
How is it contrary to the NT? (Just curious.)
As I understand it, the Act of Supremacy of 1534 said that Henry VIII was Supreme Head of the C of E. It was repealed under Mary I. After Elizabeth I became Queen, the Act of Supremacy of 1558 gave her the title Supreme Governor rather than Supreme Head.
I have seen various reasons given for the change in wording. One is that, as you say, it's Christ who's meant to be Head of the Church. Another is that it's because it was felt it was inappropriate for a woman to be head of the church.
No doubt there can be some considerable differences in readings but it appears to me there are some fairly important shared premises. For instance; and I may be going out on a limb here; but I would take a wild guess that almost all Christians regard Christ as the Son of God and that for some reason he was sacrificed in a very unpleasant way.
to find out what christians believe, just look up "creed". from memory the wikipedia article covers the main ones ........
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to describe the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the communion service), and specifically in the consecrated bread and wine, by using some Aristotelian metaphysics that I don't think many now quite understand. (Were there ever many who understood it?) There's also a question of how "body" and "blood" are meant to be understood in that context.
As transubstantiation sees it, the "substance" of the bread and win have become the body and blood of Christ, while the "accidents" -- everything perceptible to the senses -- remain those of bread and wine (but not as an illusion). And it's Christ as a whole that's present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the bread and wine. (It's not even divided up so it's body in bread and blood in wine, which is why it's enough to receive communion in only one "kind", usually just bread.)
The Eastern Orthodox view is at least very similar. Luther had a view called "sacramental union" which is evidently meant to be different from something called "consubstantiation", which is also different from transubstantiation and not to be confused with "consubstantial" (which is about the relationship between the persons of the Trinity).
Getting one's head around such ideas is difficult, to say the least, and a big problem is just trying to understand what "substance" is supposed to mean. It's a term that was once much used in philosophy, but I'm not sure anyone but specialists in historical metaphysics would spend much time on it nowadays.
Anyway, for transubstantiation and the alternatives, this Wikipedia page looks like a good starting point: Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Preferably look in the Bible.
So where are you going with that? In any case, I don't see how "shared premises" are derived, given the problem of how literally the Creed is meant to be understood, and the issue of whether church members are meant to treat is as a set of beliefs they're meant to sign up to, or in some other way.
Also, why do you say "sacrificed" when the Nicene Creed just says "crucified", without indicating that it's to be understood as a sacrifice?
Thanks for you reply Veri. I had read that already and there doesn't seem to be any making sense of it for me. It seems to be a whole lot of palaver by the RC Church , to represent something inherently simple. Christ said to do this "In remembrance of Him"
He also said when two or three are gathered together in His name he is there with them. Not that he was only present when they drank and ate.
1. Timothy 2.5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.