"IT" can be anything you want to consider.  Take for instance the word:

"CHRISTIAN"

Dictionary.com defines a "Christian" as:

• One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
• One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
• One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.
• One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely become an adherent of an opposing system.
• One of a Christian denomination which rejects human creeds as bases of fellowship, and sectarian names. They are congregational in church government, and baptize by immersion. They are also called Disciples of Christ, and Campbellites. 
• One of a sect (called Christian Connection) of open-communion immersionists. The Bible is their only authoritative rule of faith and practice.
  

The word "Christian" is  found in three places within the Bible:

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.
[NOTE: The "disciples" present at this specific point in time in Antioch were called Christians.]

ACTS 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

1 PETER 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

From the dictionary definition, it appears that one becomes a "Christian" when he "professes a belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."  One could also be referred to as a "Christian" if it is ASSUMED he believes "in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him," or if he was "born in a Christian country or of Christian parents."

From the Bible, it is clear that the disciples in Antioch in Acts 11:26 were Christians.

From the dictionary definition, they are everywhere they claim to be, and, are assumed to be at this time. 

From the Bible, it is clear there were some Christians walking the face of the earth in Antioch at the chronological point in time congruent with the historical record contained in Acts 11:26. 

From the dictionary definition, because individuals want to follow a "religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus," probably, because they perceive some kind of a spiritual benefit for doing such.

From the Bible, it is not readily evident from the three verses why the disciples were called Christians, but they do satisfy the dictionary definition as followers of Christ being His disciples. 

From the dictionary definition, when one believes, professes, or is assumed to be a follower of a religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus.

From the Bible, the disciples were followers, but it is not readily apparent from the three verses what they believed being Christians at that chronological point in time.

From the dictionary definition, anyone and anything that claims to be, for instance, George W. Bush, the Pope, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, America, etc. 

From the Bible, the disciples in Acts 11:26, for sure. 

What if it is impossible to be a "Christian?"

What if being a "Christian" today is actually and/or technically impossible, because such is not supported by a scriptural definition and description of what qualifies one to be a genuine Christian? 

If there is no such thing as being "Christian" today, scripturally-speaking, then what is going on with all this "Christian" stuff in your face everywhere you turn?

What if every associative use of the word "Christian" today is synonymous with a "FALSE WAY?"

The Bible answers these questions precisely, leaving no doubt that it is impossible for anyone or anything to be Christian at this chronological point in time anywhere on the face of the earth. 

PAUL'S FIRST CONVERSION IN DAMASCUS

Acts 9:1-30 shifts the main focus onto Saul [Paul].  Acts 22:4-21 and Acts 26:10-23 contain supplementary information contemporaneous with the chronological history of events delineated in Acts 9:1-30.  In other words, even though what happens to Paul in Acts 22 and 26 occurs many years after the actual events described in Acts 9:1-30, the information recorded in these two chapters relates directly back to what did happen to Paul in the Acts 9 time frame.  

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE RECORD

Acts and Galatians are two separate books.  Each was written at a different time and by a different author, yet it was God that preserved His words even to this present unbelieving, English-speaking, "Christian" generation.  The chronological order of Saul's travel from one location to another is precisely described in the text contained in each book.  

Acts 9:1-30 details Saul traveling from Jerusalem to Damascus, back to Jerusalem, then to Caesarea on his way to Tarsus.  Galatians 1:17-22 details Saul traveling from Arabia, to Damascus, to Jerusalem, then up through the regions of Syria and Cilicia [Note: Cilicia is where Tarsus is located].

If one contends that Saul traveled from Damascus to Arabia as recorded in Galatians 1:17, then Paul would have to travel back to Damascus from Arabia.  This would place Paul taking this travel to Arabia sometime between Acts 9:20 and 9:25, while he was still recuperating and gaining back his strength.  Plus, the detail of Paul traveling through the regions of Syria and Cilicia after Jerusalem contradicts Acts 9:28-30, so Galatians 1:21 has to be completely deleted for any fit to make sense between the two separate records.  

There are more problems present when you try to force fit a trip to Arabia in between Acts 9:20-30.  Galatians 1:18-19 says that " after three years I [Paul, when I was known as Saul] went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."  If Saul took a trip to Arabia anytime between Acts 9:20-30, then this is an outright lie, which Paul specifically said was not a lie in Galatians 1:20.  When Saul was in Jerusalem between Acts 9:26-30, it is clear he saw disciples in verse 26, plus Barnabas and apostles in verse 27, not just Peter and James.  

Furthermore, Galatians 1:22-23 says that Saul "was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."  This contradicts the fact that Acts 9:26 indicates that they knew who Saul was "by face" because they were afraid of him.  Acts 8:1,3; 22:4; 26:10 & 20 indicate that there were plenty of disciples in and around Judaea that had been persecuted by Saul face-to-face , yet Galatians says Saul was "unknown by face" to them in Judaea.  The only way Saul [Paul] could have been "unknown by face" in Judaea is if a large segment of time had passed in between each chronological time frame of Acts 9:20-30 and Galatians 1:18-23.  Also note that Saul had preached " the faith which once he destroyed."  The only faith Paul was destroying back in Acts 7-9 was the one represented and delivered by Peter's gospel.  [Note: Later you will see that Saul did not get "his gospel" directly from the Lord in Arabia until the chronological point in time simultaneous with the time frame of Acts 10:10-16.]

Saul DID NOT take a trip to Arabia during the Acts 9:20-30 time frame.  Saul's trip to Arabia, Damascus, Jerusalem and through the regions of Syria and Cilicia was done during the chronological period of time represented between Acts 9:30 and 11:25.  This fit is perfect as far as trajectories and scirpture with no contradictions between the two separate travel records in Acts and Galatians.  See the map below for the correct depiction of Saul's travels from Acts 9 to Acts 11:26.  Toss the religion and believe The Book. 

SO, WHAT DOES IT MATTER???

There are many diverse views of what actually transpired during Acts:

1.) Some say that Paul got all of "his gospel" in one lump sum directly from the Lord during his "road to Damascus" experience.  
2.) Some say that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel, with no real difference between the two.  
3.) Some contend that there has always been only one church based upon one gospel which was delivered equally by both the apostles and Paul.  
4.) Some say that Paul never preached what Peter preached and vice versa.
5.) Several distinct sects are based upon when "the church" actually started. ["The church" being  the one built upon Paul's "gospel of grace."]
6.) Some contend that you cannot determine the chronological order of events in Acts without the information contained in Romans.
7.) To others the gospel means nothing more than "good news," and everything else just doesn't really matter because fallible men wrote the book anyway, so it is full of mistakes and errors.

The need for having a correct chronological description, of the specific time and location order of events as they happened, is that without such there would be no solid, unbiased foundation available upon which one could rely and build.  A study paradigm based upon the spiritually neutral elements of time and location is immune from personal prejudices rooted in denominational religious pride, teachings, allegiance, and/or dogma.  Starting with non-chronological pieces of information extracted from Paul's epistles, prior to connecting the chronological trajectory of "dots," would only lean toward the creation of even more diverse "Christian" sects - "false ways" claiming to be truth.  

The correct chronological presentation of events above shows that Paul got "his gospel" some time after Acts 9:30, and before Acts 11:25.  Galatians is pretty explicit regarding the gospel Saul got from the Lord.  " But I [Paul] certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ [Galatians 1:11-12].  Therefore, Saul did not get the full complete dose of "his gospel" on the road to Damascus.  Paul says he got this gospel from the Lord in Arabia [Galatians 1:15-17].  To prove otherwise the text of scripture would have to be changed to re-arrange geography and/or timing of history as already preserved and recorded in order to make something else fit that presently does not.

The exact chronological point in time in Acts that was simultaneous with the point in time Paul [Saul] was in Arabia, getting "his gospel" from the Lord, as recorded in Galatians 1:17, can be determined more easily after being narrowed down to sometime between Acts 9:30 and 11:25.  

The Lord told Ananias in Acts 9:15, "Go thy way: for he [Saul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  In Acts 10:11 Peter "saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him."  What Peter saw was a "certain vessel" of common and unclean things [similar to common and unclean Gentiles].  "This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven [Acts 10:16].  At the same time Peter was in his trance, Paul [Saul at the time it actually happened] describes in 1 Corinthians 12:1-9, that he "was given . . . a thorn in the flesh" and "besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from" him.  Peter and Paul got the same message from the Lord at the exact same instant in time.  

What was the simultaneous message?  Gentiles were now to become part of the overall program.  The text in Acts and 1 Corinthians seems to suggest that Peter and Paul were most likely seeing each other, yet not recognizing the actual persona of each, but rather what each stood for symbolically.  Peter saw the "Gentile" program in Paul, and Paul saw the circumcision believers under Peter's gospel as the "thorn in the flesh."  The "thorn" existed within Paul throughout Acts, piercing his "heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved [Romans 10:1]."  

Satisfying Paul's "heart's desire" was an impossibility.  Some of the believing part of the nation of Israel that had accepted Peter's gospel later received Paul's gospel.  Keep in mind that Paul knew and got saved first under Peter's gospel in the Acts 9:18 time frame.  Then Paul got "his gospel" later to become the "first" saved under that gospel.  1 Timothy 1:16: " Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."  

Paul getting "his gospel" in Arabia made him the "first" one into what many refer to as the church, the body of Christ.  That church started at the Acts 10:10-16 chronological instant in time.  This fact of Paul knowing, believing, and getting saved under both gospels [first Peter's, then his] is what made him capable of being the " minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee [Acts 26:16]." 

Others in with the believing part of the nation of Israel, in particular the 12 apostles, would never fully understand or become believers under the gospel given to Paul by the Lord in Arabia.  Paul's gospel placed one into Christ as "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones [Ephesians 5:30]."  The apostles had to remain the distinct individuals they will be in the future, sitting over the twelve tribes in the kingdom and cannot be "in Christ" the same way those under Paul's gospel are "in Christ."  

Paul's gospel states that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture" [1 Corinthians 15:3-4], thus "being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life" [Romans 6:22], receiving "the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" [Ephesians 4:30].  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" [Ephesians 4:30], and that faith "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" [Romans 10:17].

Paul's gospel protocol only required belief and faith in the fact that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, past, present, and future, for anyone completely placing all trust in Him for their salvation. There is no repentance or works meet for repentance involved, no water baptism, and no calling or believing on the name of the Lord as required under Peter's gospel protocol for remission of sins.  Paul's gospel presented "the way of God more perfectly" [Acts 18:26]. 

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” [Matthew 7:13-14].  There is no gate wide or broad enough today capable of handling the number of so-called professing “Christians” walking the face of the earth.  Claiming to be “Christian” now is actually somewhat similar in effect to the “camel/needle’s eye” predicament for a rich man.