The link you posted literally proves my point. Christian has been used as an encompassing term for followers of Jesus Christ for the last 100 years the terms you posted sound the same but mean two very different things.
I posted three sources and you evidently did not read any of them. The latest of the three sources is the exact same variant as modern use and dated 1500s, which is slightly more than the 100 years ago you’re claiming.
When I said it was a biblical term I was being entirely literal. King James translation circa 1610, Acts 11:26:
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Christian Science as the name of a religious sect is from 1863. Is the first historical use of the word.The ch- form, regular since c. 1500 in English, was rare before. This is from YOUR source. Lastly, You quoting a religious text as historical is literally showing the lack of critical thinking skills necessary to read said doctrine.
You are very bad at trolling. Try reading the first sentence of the source instead of skipping to a related etymology. Use of a word in a 1610 text is concrete evidence of use of that word existing in 1610, regardless of any other claims that text makes; if it read “Martians ate my baby” that would be concrete evidence of the word “Martians” being used but not of Martians existing.
The link you posted literally proves my point. Christian has been used as an encompassing term for followers of Jesus Christ for the last 100 years the terms you posted sound the same but mean two very different things.
I posted three sources and you evidently did not read any of them. The latest of the three sources is the exact same variant as modern use and dated 1500s, which is slightly more than the 100 years ago you’re claiming.
When I said it was a biblical term I was being entirely literal. King James translation circa 1610, Acts 11:26:
Christian Science as the name of a religious sect is from 1863. Is the first historical use of the word.The ch- form, regular since c. 1500 in English, was rare before. This is from YOUR source. Lastly, You quoting a religious text as historical is literally showing the lack of critical thinking skills necessary to read said doctrine.
You are very bad at trolling. Try reading the first sentence of the source instead of skipping to a related etymology. Use of a word in a 1610 text is concrete evidence of use of that word existing in 1610, regardless of any other claims that text makes; if it read “Martians ate my baby” that would be concrete evidence of the word “Martians” being used but not of Martians existing.
“Regardless of the evidence I put forth” OK gl with that in your thesis defence