[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This thread was formerly known as RIP Prince.

That thread still exists , chief.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No. What I'm actually doing is distinguishing between "Christianity" as defined by religious tradition ... and "Christianity" as defined by how some denominations interpret the Bible. Because the two don't always coincide. Case in point ... the Seventh Day Adventists have a pretty incontrovertible case that there is no scriptural basis for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Was it done anyway by the Roman Catholic Church? Yes. Was it ordered by Emperor Constantine in order to syncretize his newly co-opted adopted "Christian" religion with the existing religious practices of his "pagan" subjects? The historical record makes a very case that this is exactly what happened. But let's set that aside for now. The point is that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in worship on Sunday. But there are other Christians who do not. The same principle applies to the concept of the Trinity. The early Church was rife with disagreement on this topic and it took the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to get everyones ducks in a row. At least when it came to the Roman Catholic Church. But let's not pretend that everyone who considered themselves to be "Christian" has always been of the same mind on this issue. And just as reasonable people can disagree in the 1st and 2nd centuries reasonable people can disagree in 21st century. That's all I'm saying.

OAW

Constantine Has Been Beaten to Death | Catholic Answers

Another mistaken notion is that Constantine exercised complete control over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The primary reason for the council was due to the growing Arian heresy. Jimmy Akin summarizes Arianism this way:

[Arianism was] founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in beginning. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer (The Fathers Know Best, p. 85).

Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:

[W]hen Constantine also endorsed Arius’s ideas, there was an uproar that led the emperor in 325 to call the Council of Nicaea (Asia Minor) to settle the issue. After an intense struggle, the Council condemned Arius, declaring the Son to be “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, sharing the same substance (History of the Catholic Church, p. 83).

If Constantine held as much sway over the Council as many claim, then it is a peculiar thing that the Christology he favored was the big loser.

Sabbath or Sunday? | Catholic Answers

Some religious organizations (Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. They claim that, at some unnamed time after the apostolic age, the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

However, passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.



The Didache

"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Christianity is the tradition, not just the belief in Jesus. What day the Sabbath falls on is open to debate, whether Jesus was a human being and God isn't. At least not within the doctrine of Christianity.

Objectively that doesn't mean someone is a bad person, a bad follower of Jesus, or that they aren't "saved" (though many will gripe that it does). It simply means they aren't part of the Christian, "catholic" (not talking about specific Catholics) tradition. Now, there's also cultural Christianity, which most people in the Western world are part of, even atheists, which is also known as Western Liberalism. So, are Jehovah's Witnesses culturally Christian? If they live in the West, most likely. Are they part of the 2000 year-old Christian tradition? No.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The practice of worshipping on Sunday, for the most part, came from Jews and Christians sharing the same synagogues. The Jews had them on Saturday and Christians on Sunday.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That thread still exists , chief.

This thread was formerly known as...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This thread was formerly known as...

Can't be, there's no prince posts in it. At best it was split off by a mod, but I suspect it is just an offshoot of spirited discussion.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Christianity is the tradition, not just the belief in Jesus. What day the Sabbath falls on is open to debate, whether Jesus was a human being and God isn't. At least not within the doctrine of Christianity.

doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Let me try this another way. You keep talking about "Christian doctrine" ... as if that is some singular reality that exists and it does not. What I'm saying is that what actually exists are numerous "Doctrines taught by various Christian Churches". On many articles of faith these various doctrines agree. On many others they disagree. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have all these various denominations running around! So let me be very clear on what I'm saying here. If your position is that Trinitarianism is a doctrinal tenet of mainstream Christianity then I agree with you wholeheartedly. But if you are saying that is a doctrinal tenet of Christianity across the board then you are simply ignoring the reality of millions of self-identified Christians simply because they do not ascribe to this doctrinal tenet held by churches to which they don't belong. And since when did "majority rules" become the standard when it comes to matters of faith?

Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to monotheistic belief systems, primarily within Christianity, which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.

According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final (OAW: This is the operative phrase here and therein lies my point!), trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3] that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]

In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise only a small minority of modern Christianity. By far the two largest nontrinitarian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") and the Jehovah's Witnesses, though there are a number of other smaller ones, including the Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God.

Nontrinitarianism

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Can't be, there's no prince posts in it. At best it was split off by a mod, but I suspect it is just an offshoot of spirited discussion.

If you're this determined to trash my joke, I shall concede.

[The Final Dakar]

Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Perhaps because I was never in the prince thread?

[subego]

Don't worry... the Prince thread is in you.

[P]

TL;DR of that thread: Prince was a Jehovahs Witness, someone called that a Christian sect, Cap'n disagreed on grounds of christology and I argued that that wasn't a good enough reason, as there are other groups that are generally called Christians that disagree about the same points. Somehow this point was more important than the original topic, and here we are.

[The Final Dakar]

Philosophical hey trumps any mere musician.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final (OAW: This is the operative phrase here and therein lies my point!)

OAW

Do you reject them all, including the 1st ecumenical council?

Just to be clear, what do you consider yourself? JW, Unitarian Universalist, NOI, Muslim, ....etc.)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Let me try this another way. You keep talking about "Christian doctrine" ... as if that is some singular reality that exists and it does not. What I'm saying is that what actually exists are numerous "Doctrines taught by various Christian Churches". On many articles of faith these various doctrines agree. On many others they disagree. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have all these various denominations running around! So let me be very clear on what I'm saying here. If your position is that Trinitarianism is a doctrinal tenet of mainstream Christianity then I agree with you wholeheartedly. But if you are saying that is a doctrinal tenet of Christianity across the board then you are simply ignoring the reality of millions of self-identified Christians simply because they do not ascribe to this doctrinal tenet held by churches to which they don't belong. And since when did "majority rules" become the standard when it comes to matters of faith?

Nontrinitarianism

I don't get your argument, it makes no sense at all.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Do you reject them all, including the 1st ecumenical council?

Just to be clear, what do you consider yourself? JW, Unitarian Universalist, NOI, Muslim, ....etc.)

We aren't talking about me. My only point here is that ....

According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils.

... but there are Christian churches that do NOT consider such ecumenical council decisions "final". And they fundamentally disagree with them. So one can't say that they are not "Christian" because they disagree with doctrinal beliefs held by other churches to which they do not belong. Now I realize that this analogy is a big stretch ... but consider this. In the NFL a player with the ball is ruled "down" if their knee is on the turf AND a defender touches them. That's their rule. However, in college and high school a player with the ball is ruled "down" simply by their knee touching the turf. But the NFL doesn't get to say that high school and college players aren't really playing "football" because they belong to organizations with a different set of rules in this area.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Then they fundamentally aren't Christian churches, because Christianity is fundamentally trinitarian. Is it American football if the ball is round? This isn't just a variance in leagues, it's an entirely different sport.

[el chupacabra]

All partial manifestations of the same being. Jesus being the one you talk/pray to as your representative to the god head so to speak. Thats sorta how I see it anyway.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

All partial manifestations of the same being. Jesus being the one you talk/pray to as your representative to the god head so to speak. Thats sorta how I see it anyway.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Originally Posted by Chongo
Do you reject them all, including the 1st ecumenical council?

Just to be clear, what do you consider yourself? JW, Unitarian Universalist, NOI, Muslim, ....etc.)

We aren't talking about me.

OAW

Yet, here you are, appearing to defend the heresies of Modalism and Sabellianism ( to name just two). It would be helpful to understand where your beliefs are rooted.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yet, here you are, appearing to defend the heresies of Modalism and Sabellianism ( to name just two). It would be helpful to understand where your beliefs are rooted.

I suppose I don't understand why the simple point I'm making is a matter of "controversy"? At the end of the day we are discussing a matter of faith. Not a matter of fact. There are doctrinal disagreements over matters of faith all the time. If we were talking about whether 2+2 = 4 then that would not be subject to debate. However, if we were talking about whether intelligent life exists in the universe other than on Earth then that's a discussion that is subject to different points of view. Consequently, any discussion regarding the nature of a Supreme Being is subject to different points of view as well. Even within Christendom. Because no one church/organization/sect/denomination speaks for all of Christendom! The Roman Catholic Church can define what is "orthodox" and/or "heresy" with regard to doctrinal matters like Trinitarism (or even Transubstantiation) for its membership. But it doesn't get to speak for Jehovah's Witnesses on such issues. Just like Mormons don't get to speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church on doctrinal matters. And Southern Baptists don't get to speak for the Coptic Orthodox Church either. Etc. Furthermore, I don't have to "defend" or "advocate" for the doctrine of any "Christian" denomination to recognize that it has the right to define its own for its membership. Because the last time I checked ... the term "Christian" wasn't trademarked.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Surely any group who believes Christ has any divinity at all or focuses primarily on his teachings should consider themselves Christian?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

They can consider themselves whatever they want, but there's an objective reality to what that name means. It's the proper name of a specific group that worships Jesus as God and believes in the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

[Chongo]

Hmmm,

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Surely any group who believes Christ has any divinity at all or focuses primarily on his teachings should consider themselves Christian?

One would think.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ Only if one doesn't understand that it's the proper name of a specific group that believes specific things.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They can consider themselves whatever they want, but there's an objective reality to what that name means. It's the proper name of a specific group that worships Jesus as God and believes in the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

The "objective reality" is not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Trinitarianism. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Baptism of infants or non-submersion in water. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the same doctrine when it comes to the role of "good works" and/or "grace" in Salvation. Etc.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

^^ Only if one doesn't understand that it's the proper name of a specific group that believes specific things.

But it's NOT the "proper name" of a specific group. It's a COLLECTION of groups that each have a "proper name" and its own set of doctrinal beliefs.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But it's NOT the "proper name" of a specific group.

Yes, it really is.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The "objective reality" is not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Trinitarianism.

They have to be, because it's core to being a Christian. While they can call themselves whatever they want, that doesn't make it so.

[OAW]

I just provided a list of other "core" doctrines that various Christian groups disagree about. The fact that you simply choose to ignore that part speaks volumes about your fundamental unwillingness to recognize that Christendom is not a monolith ... even with respect to core doctrines.

Case in point with respect to Biblical Inerrancy. Some Christian groups believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old because of how they view that doctrine. Others not so much.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They can consider themselves whatever they want, but there's an objective reality to what that name means. It's the proper name of a specific group that worships Jesus as God and believes in the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The "objective reality" is not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Trinitarianism. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the doctrine of Baptism of infants or non-submersion in water. Just like not all Christian groups believe in the same doctrine when it comes to the role of "good works" and/or "grace" in Salvation. Etc.

OAW

Originally Posted by OAW 

I just provided a list of other "core" doctrines that various Christian groups disagree about. The fact that you simply choose to ignore that part speaks volumes about your fundamental unwillingness to recognize that Christendom is not a monolith ... even with respect to core doctrines.

Case in point with respect to Biblical Inerrancy. Some Christian groups believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old because of how they view that doctrine. Others not so much.

OAW

This basically describes the difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura Protestants.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I just provided a list of other "core" doctrines that various Christian groups disagree about. The fact that you simply choose to ignore that part speaks volumes about your fundamental unwillingness to recognize that Christendom is not a monolith ... even with respect to core doctrines.

Case in point with respect to Biblical Inerrancy. Some Christian groups believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old because of how they view that doctrine. Others not so much.

I just gloss over when you're expounding upon things that don't matter, they're meaningless to the discussion. I've already explained what Christianity is, it's the proper name of a (very large) group who hold specific teachings, and among them (and most importantly) is the divinity of Jesus and Trinitarianism. What you're claiming is also a part of Christianity was officially labeled as heretical and anathema >1500 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity

[OAW]

And yet again you cite a reference that doesn't actually say what you claim it does. A reference that actually reiterates my point.

When heresy is used today with reference to Christianity, it denotes the formal denial or doubt of a core doctrine of the Christian faith as defined by one or more of the Christian churches.

See the highlighted portion right there?

As I stated earlier ... each church defines its own doctrine and makes its own determinations about what is "orthodox" and what is "heresy". So please do continue to "gloss over" my posts in your rudimentary attempt to "debate" this issue with me. You'll only make yourself look even more foolish.

OAW

[Chongo]

That sounds like the father of all heresies, Gnosticism.

[subego]

It seems to me it's being argued Christianity is perfectly binary. You either are Christian or you are not. The border is perfectly delineated. There are no edge cases. An excluded middle does not exist.

Well, I'll be damned if that situation isn't unique in all of language.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And yet again you cite a reference that doesn't actually say what you claim it does. A reference that actually reiterates my point.

No, it really doesn't.

See the highlighted portion right there?

As I stated earlier ... each church defines its own doctrine and makes its own determinations about what is "orthodox" and what is "heresy".[/B][/I]

No it doesn't, because Christianity is already established, that happened before even the fall of the Roman empire.

As I stated earlier ... each church defines its own doctrine and makes its own determinations about what is "orthodox" and what is "heresy". So please do continue to "gloss over" my posts in your rudimentary attempt to "debate" this issue with me. You'll only make yourself look even more foolish.

You're very confused, you should take (many) courses on Church history, as defined as the body of Christ at the Council of Constantinople (outlined before that at Nicea). I'm not debating you, that would denote that any portion of your argument has merit and could potentially be factual, I'm trying to educate your ignorance in this matter. However, you're simply, totally, and unequivocally wrong. What is Christian is established, it's a specific term.

"You'll only make yourself look even more foolish." Your perspective is trash, even worse than your garbled views on Christology. As like in many other matters, I'd would worry much more if you actually agreed with me.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

It seems to me it's being argued Christianity is perfectly binary. You either are Christian or you are not. The border is perfectly delineated. There are no edge cases. An excluded middle does not exist.

Well, I'll be damned if that situation isn't unique in all of language.

No, it isn't. There is latitude in types of worship and doctrine, however, there are certain principles that are fundamental. If you remove those the tent falls, and the center "pole", as it were, is the simultaneous divinity and humanity of Jesus. Without that, a church is no more Christian than the AIPAC.

[Chongo]

I head this article mentioned on Catholic Answers.

Those Who Start Their Own Church Follow the Voice of Satan: 11 Teachings from St. Cyprian AD 250

[Waragainstsleep]

I still say the clue is in the name. If you follow the teachings of Christ, (the implication being he is elevated above all other teachers) you must be a Christian.

I don't know why you're obsessing over the trinity. As far as I understand only the Catholics are particularly bothered about it. It was glossed over very briefly when I was at CofE school. They didn't make any sort of big deal about it. In fact I think the only reason the holy ghost ever came up was from song lyrics. Occasional Catholic hymns and The Day the Music Died.

To mef the trinity is just a nonsensical paradox that clergy pretend to understand and worshippers can't so they have to go and seek "wisdom" from their Priests. Its like a vestigial control mechanism.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it isn't. There is latitude in types of worship and doctrine, however, there are certain principles that are fundamental. If you remove those the tent falls, and the center "pole", as it were, is the simultaneous divinity and humanity of Jesus. Without that, a church is no more Christian than the AIPAC.

I don't understand how a third century council of Catholics can exercise ultimate authority over 21st century English.

Does not "follower of Christ" have a "common sense" definition wherein his divinity is irrelevant?

I feel like next you're going to tell me racism isn't hating people of another race because social sciences people insist you include microagressions in the definition.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The Trinity isn't even the issue here, it's the nature of Christ (that started this whole kerfuffle), though it's still a bedrock tenet of the faith. Without the dual-substance of Christ (both divine and man), there's no sacrifice, no salvation, no Christianity.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand how a third century council of Catholics can exercise ultimate authority over 21st century English.

Does not "follower of Christ" have a "common sense" definition wherein his divinity is irrelevant?

I feel like next you're going to tell me racism isn't hating people of another race because social sciences people insist you include microagressions in the definition.

I didn't say anything about "follower of Christ", the specific term Christian is the proper name of a religious group with well-defined beliefs, among them being the dual-substance of Jesus (including his divinity) and the doctrine of the Trinity. Twisting definitions doesn't benefit anything or anyone and simply creates more confusion (as witnessed in this very thread).

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The Trinity isn't even the issue here, it's the nature of Christ (that started this whole kerfuffle), though it's still a bedrock tenet of the faith. Without the dual-substance of Christ (both divine and man), there's no sacrifice, no salvation, no Christianity.

So Copts aren't Christians, is that what you're saying?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by P 

So Copts aren't Christians, is that what you're saying?

They believe in both the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, what are you talking about? (I'm curious because I am, last I heard, still a deacon in the Coptic Christian church and am intimately familiar with what their seminary teaches.)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand how a third century council of Catholics can exercise ultimate authority over 21st century English.

Does not "follower of Christ" have a "common sense" definition wherein his divinity is irrelevant?

The funny thing is I was actually trying NOT to take it there. This notion of a handful of dudes (no females allowed) sitting around a table in the 3rd century is in any way capable and/or authorized to speak for all of humanity or even Christendom for the rest of time is problematic at best. In no other human endeavor would anyone think such a notion would be anything other than nonsensical. But somehow when the topic is "religion" people are all too eager to just check their God given brains at the door and just believe what other human beings tell them just because they assert religious "authority".

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it really doesn't.

And yet again your enduring arrogance leads you to think that mere denial without even an attempt to actually REFUTE what I stated constitutes an argument. I unequivocally demonstrated how your own reference made the same point that I'm making. Let me drive this point home even further. Did your own reference state ...

... as defined by one or more of the Christian churches.

... or did it say ...

... as defined by all Christian churches.

????

We've long since established that reading comprehension isn't particularly your strong suit. And I've been more than patient with trying to get you to grasp a really basic concept here. But now you force me to have to spell it out to you on a grade school level. Do you really not understand the portion of your own reference that I highlighted? Or are you just pretending not to in order to gin up unnecessary "controversy"? Or did you just cite a headline without actually bothering to read the article because you are just intellectually lazy like that?

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't say anything about "follower of Christ", the specific term Christian is the proper name of a religious group with well-defined beliefs, among them being the dual-substance of Jesus (including his divinity) and the doctrine of the Trinity. Twisting definitions doesn't benefit anything or anyone and simply creates more confusion (as witnessed in this very thread).

When the word is used in the Bible, this is what it's referring to?

I understood it to mean "follower of Christ".

I may be mistaken on things (as is often the case), but I am by no means trying to twist definitions.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

When the word is used in the Bible, this is what it's referring to?

I understood it to mean "follower of Christ".

I may be mistaken on things (as is often the case), but I am by no means trying to twist definitions.

Well let's say for the sake of discussion we are looking to the Bible to define the word "Christian". It was only used three times. Generally in a derogatory manner by others to mean "Follower of Christ". Jesus never referred to himself as a "Christian" nor did any of his disciples. But therein lies my point. There are fundamental differences between what certain denominations that go by what certain ancient church councils had to say about it ... and other denominations that go by what the bible had to say about it. And even the latter are still somewhat influenced by the former because the former decided which religious scriptures would be canonical and which would not. At the end of the day the fingerprints of MAN are all over everything. So do with that what you will.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And yet again your enduring arrogance

Irony.

... or did it say ...

I couldn't care less what it said.

We've long since established that reading comprehension isn't particularly your strong suit.

and holding your volatile temper isn't yours. This isn't the Pol/War area, FYI. We're done until you can calm down.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

When the word is used in the Bible, this is what it's referring to?

I understood it to mean "follower of Christ".

I may be mistaken on things (as is often the case), but I am by no means trying to twist definitions.

It really wasn't used until centuries after Jesus' death, during his time, and for some time after, it was quite literally just called "The Way".