×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.


image

The History of the Christian Church, 01-IT BEGINS

01-IT BEGINS

The best place to start is at the beginning. But with Church History, where is that? Where do we begin?

Most MODERN Christians would probably start with Jesus. That seems pretty straight-forward.

But where would the FIRST Christians have begun?

They were Jews, and considered what they believed as a purified form of Judaism; a faith Moses would have approved of. They believed Jesus was Messiah, the long hoped for & oft prophesied Savior Who came to restore the faith God revealed to Abraham 2000 years before. So à Where would Peter, Andrew, John, James, or Thomas have begun telling the story?

The Apostle John begins his story of Jesus at creation with the words “In the beginning …” We'll come up in time considerably and start with the man known as Jesus of Nazareth engaged in His public ministry; traveling through Northern Israel with a dozen disciples.

At that time, the 1st Century of what modern historians like to called the Common Era, Israel was an uneasy part of the Roman Empire. Unlike some provinces that counted being part of Rome a privilege, Israel loathed their Roman occupiers. Most Jews resisted more than just political domination by a foreign power; they also despise the Greek culture the Romans brought with them.

All this stirred the pot of popular expectation among Jews for the arrival of the Messiah who they anticipated would be primarily a political figure. Scripture foretold He'd replace corruption with paradise; the wicked would be punished, the righteous rewarded, and Israel exalted among the nations. Messiah would restore David's throne and rule over the affairs of Earth.

Some prophets spoke of a war between good and evil that would resolve in the Messiah's victory. This flavored the anticipation of many. They cast Rome as the chief adversary Messiah would crush.

By the 1st Century, different groups had developed around their belief in what was the right way to prepare for this political Messiah.

The Pharisees devoted themselves to the Law of Moses and religious tradition.

The Essenes took a segregationist approach, pursuing holiness by moving to isolated communes to await Messiah's arrival.

Zealots advocated armed resistance against Rome as well as those Jews who collaborated with the hated enemy. Zealots drew their inspiration from the successful Maccabean Revolt against the Syrian Greeks a couple hundred years before.

A 4th group were the Sadducees who took a more pragmatic approach to the Roman presence & accommodated themselves to the Greco-Roman culture they were convinced would eventually become the status quo. Sadducees were a minority but held most of the positions of political and religious leadership in Jerusalem.

The last and by far largest group among the Jews of 1st Century is rarely mentioned; the Common People. They were neither Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene nor Zealot. They were just à Jews; everyday people in covenant with God but preoccupied with fields, flocks, trades, markets, family, & well—Life; the daily grind. They held opinions regarding politics and religion but were too busy surviving to join one of the groups who claimed superiority to the others. It was these commoners who were most attracted to Jesus. They were drawn to Him because He did a masterful job of refusing to be co-opted by the elites.

Jesus came in the traditional mode of a Rabbi, but was anything but traditional. Like other rabbis, He had disciples who followed Him, but His teaching stood in contrast to theirs. His words carried authority that challenged the thick, hard shell of tradition that had become encrusted round their religion. Listening to Jesus wasn't like listening to a commentary on Torah, which so many other teachers DID sound like. Listening to Jesus was like listening to Moses himself, explaining what the law was meant to be and do. Then—Jesus did something that really made people pay attention; He validated His teaching by performing miracles. And not a few. He did many!

It was a tough assignment to carve a path through Jewish society that didn't intersect with the Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots or Sadducees, but Jesus negotiated it perfectly. Both His life and teaching powerfully demonstrated genuine Judaism and revealed the shabby counterfeit of the religious pretenders. At first they tried to co-opt Him and turn his rising popularity to their agenda. When He refused to make common cause with them, they turned on Him.

Jesus furthermore resisted the efforts of the common people to make him King. Their hope that He was Messiah swelled to the call that He claim Israel's throne. They wanted a political leader. But that was not Jesus' mission & He resisted their attempts to install Him as monarch. Jesus' consistent message was the true nature of the Kingdom of God. Contemporary Judaism saw that Kingdom as primarily political, military, & economic. A realm in which …

Israel would rule instead of Rome. Messiah would reign in place of Caesar. Judaism would replace paganism. And the sandal finally would be on the other foot. Jesus' message was a much different take on the Kingdom. It wasn't about politics or economics. It was about the heart, the inner life. Jesus repeatedly emphasized that to be in covenant with God meant to be in an intimate relationship with Him, not as some distant, disinterested deity, but as a loving Father.

Jesus' popularity with commoners created jealousy on the part of the leaders. His unblemished example of a warm & endearing godliness revealed the pathetic shabbiness of the merely religious. When He cleared the Temple of the fraudulent marketplace the leaders used as a source of income, they decided it was time to get rid of Him. They convinced themselves they were only protecting the nation from Rome's wrath against the insurrection they claimed Jesus was sure to lead. They arrested Him, ran Him through a sham-trial, then turned him over to the Romans for execution, saying He encouraged rebellion; a charge Rome took quite-seriously. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, knew he was being played by the Jewish leaders but when they threatened to complain to Rome, already being on thin ice with the Emperor, he relented & turned Jesus over for scourging & crucifixion. As they turned away from Jesus' cross late Friday afternoon, they thought, “Good riddance! At least we won't have to worry about Him anymore.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

Ch. 1 of Bruce Shelley's excellent book Church History In Plain Language begins with this line, “Christianity is the only major religion to have as its central event the humiliation of its God.”

Anyone who's decided to investigate the History of the Christian Church has probably wondered at the astounding success of the Faith in light of its central event & the belief that flows from it. An interview with the disciples the day after the crucifixion would in no way give anyone the idea Christianity would one day spread to the ends of the world & number in the billions. The transformation that took place among Jesus' followers after His resurrection is convincing proof of His rising from the tomb. The disappointment that marked Jesus' followers immediately after His execution is understandable. What isn't, is their amazing resurgence to carry on His mission. The only rational explanation for their continuation & the growth of the Jesus movement was the resurrection. By the 1st Century, Judaism had infiltrated much of the Roman Empire and had a small number of converts from among Gentiles in many cities. But these “God-fearers”, as they were called, were a tiny number considering how long Judaism had existed. The Jews had never embarked on a campaign to spread their faith. Gentile converts to Judaism were almost accidental and accommodated in the synagogue reluctantly. Yet within a century after the Resurrection, Christianity had spread across the Empire. The miraculous growth of the Church stands as eloquent testimony to its miraculous origin.

And now for a little background on the CS podcast.

What you're hearing is a 3rd version of Season 1 of Communio Sanctorum. The number of subscribers has grown tremendously; with many saying they've listened to the episodes multiple times. Version 2 contained some material that was time-sensitive; news about podcast awards, a Reformation tour, and such. Things that are no longer applicable. I thought it best to redo the series omitting all that. The CS website is also being updated and a Spanish version is being produced. It seemed an apropos time to re-record Season 1 with a refresh of the content.

I got turned on to the genius of podcasts a few years ago. Being a history nut, I went looking for my favorite subject – Rome – and found Mike Duncan's brilliant podcast series the History of Rome. Now hooked, I next devoured Lars Brownworth's 12 Byzantine Emperors & Norman Centuries. Then I went in search of a similar format podcast on Church history. I was looking for short episodes, easily listened to while working out, going for a run, or working in the yard. All I could find at that time were long lectures, most given in a college or seminary. And while the content was solid, they weren't all that interesting. What I was looking for were episodes of between 15 & 20 minutes that would break Church history up into easily digested sessions. Not finding it, I decided to do it.

So let me be clear. I'm not an historian, not even close. I love history & am a student of it. An historian is someone with access to, and does research on primary level materials. An historian is someone who gains familiarity with the past because she/he has interacted in some way with those who MADE history; if not them directly, then with the records and artifacts they left behind. All I can do is take the work of real historians, cull it, repackage it, then put it out there for whoever wants to engage it.

The study of history is by nature filled with dates and names à and that's where many would-be students find their eyes rolling toward the back of their head in utter boredom.

While dates & names can't be avoided, this podcast aims at providing a narrative of church history to help contemporary Christians connect to their roots. To use a well-worn cliché, we really do stand on the shoulders of giants. What we'll see is that those giants themselves stand on previous generations who loom large because of the lives they lived and what they accomplished. Hopefully, by discerning our place within that massive edifice we call the Church, we can faithfully provide firm shoulders for the next generation to stand on. à That isn't an unfit analogy when you consider both Paul's & Peter's allusion to the church being a building made of living stones. I just said CS is aimed primarily at contemporary Christians. A bit surprising to me is the number of non-Christians who've enjoyed the podcast. Many interested in history and wanting to fill out a gap in their knowledge on church history have expressed their appreciation.

As we end this 1st episode, let me give a quick review on HOW I'll be presenting this History of Christianity & the Church. There are many ways to study history and many theories for interpreting the past.

One way to recount History is to divide it into Pre-Modern, Modern & Post-Modern. While defining these categories could devolve into a podcast in itself, let me summarize.

In Pre-modern times, history was propaganda. It was recorded to promote some agenda, usually of the ruler who commissioned it. You may have heard the saying that it's the winners who write history. That's pretty much the way the recording of Pre-modern history was. Records that painted an alternative view of the officially sanctioned story were rounded up & destroyed. Divergent monuments were torn down and scrolls burned to erase the evidence of a substitute view of the way things went down.

In the Modern telling of history, a more scientific approach is applied to recording and interpreting events. The winners still dominate the main tale, but the voices of the defeated and despised are also considered. While the Modern scientific approach to history is more accurate than the pre-modern version, it's not entirely free from bias in that the Modern Historian still has to speak of events from his or her cultural perspective. And the selection of what facts to report or neglect is a form of editorial bias.

The Post-modern approach to history is a largely cynical method based on the idea that truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the mouth of the teller & pen of the writer. The problem in describing Post-modernism is that it's a philosophy still under construction and resists definition. Some Post-modernists would say Post-modernism is an amorphous paradigm. The moment you define it, you've said more what it's not than what it is. The Post-modern view of history is that nearly all accepted history from both the pre-Modern and Modern eras is suspect precisely because it's accepted. There's a visceral and knee-jerk rejection of authority in Post-modernism and nothing is deemed so authoritarian as tradition. As a consequence, post-modern views of history tend to be avant-garde and fringe theories one reads alongside a more traditional view.

Our approach here will be from a Modern perspective. And while it's impossible to be entirely free of bias, I will try to provide an unfiltered review of the history of Christianity & the Church. A Bibliography of the books & sources I use in researching is available on the Sanctorum.us website. Oh – & here's something I found fascinating. People left comments on the iTunes portal page labeling me with all kinds of different religious affiliations. Some were convinced I was a Roman Catholic, others that I was Eastern Orthodox, some that I was a 5 pt Calvinist, a few that I was a raving Arminianist. While the majority of comments gave the podcast high marks, there was some confusion over where I line up theologically. No matter how much I try to “Dragnet” it & report just the facts, Ma'am – It's inevitable that my doctrinal bias is going to color the material. When I do move from reportage to opinion or analysis, I'll do my best to mark it off as my opinion.

If you're curious who I am & what my theological position is – you can find that on the Sanctorum.us website. Go to the “Lance's Bio” page.

Many thanks to Lemuel Dees, a long time subscriber and voice over artist for providing the CS intro and outro and to Dade Ronan at Win at Web for massive help in setting up the new website.

Thanks as well to Roberto Aguayo for translating the episodes into Spanish and to John Parra for the intro and outro of the Spanish edition of CS.

There's a final announcement I need to share as we close. To date, CS has been a labor of love I was able to accommodate fairly easily financially. As the podcast has grown, requiring a LOT more bandwidth, the costs for hosting the audio files has risen dramatically and outstripped my ability to sustain. So though I was loath to do so, I've had to add a donation feature to the CS page. CS is free, but over the years several have asked if they could make a donation. I didn't have a way to do that, till now. So, hey, if you wanna' – now you have way to do so. ‘Nuff said.


01-IT BEGINS

The best place to start is at the beginning. The best place to start is at the beginning. El mejor lugar para comenzar es al principio. But with Church History, where is that? Ale s církevními dějinami, kde to je? Aber wo ist das bei der Kirchengeschichte? Pero con la Historia de la Iglesia, ¿dónde está eso? Where do we begin?

Most MODERN Christians would probably start with Jesus. ほとんどの現代のクリスチャンはおそらくイエスから始めるでしょう。 That seems pretty straight-forward. To se zdá docela přímočaré. Eso parece bastante sencillo. それはかなり簡単に思えます。 Isso parece bem direto. Bu oldukça basit görünüyor.

But where would the FIRST Christians have begun? Ale kde začali PRVNÍ křesťané? Pero, ¿dónde habrían comenzado los PRIMEROS cristianos? しかし、最初のクリスチャンはどこから始めたのでしょうか? Mas onde os PRIMEIROS cristãos teriam começado?

They were Jews, and considered what they believed as a purified form of Judaism; a faith Moses would have approved of. Byli to Židé a považovali to, čemu věřili, za očištěnou formu judaismu; víra, kterou by Mojžíš schválil. Eran judíos y consideraban lo que creían como una forma purificada de judaísmo; una fe que Moisés habría aprobado. 彼らはユダヤ人であり、彼らが信じていることをユダヤ教の浄化された形と見なしていました。モーセが承認したであろう信仰。 Eles eram judeus e consideravam o que acreditavam como uma forma purificada de judaísmo; uma fé que Moisés teria aprovado. Onlar Yahudiydiler ve inandıklarını Yahudiliğin saflaştırılmış bir biçimi olarak görüyorlardı; Musa'nın onaylayacağı bir inanç. They believed Jesus was Messiah, the long hoped for & oft prophesied Savior Who came to restore the faith God revealed to Abraham 2000 years before. Věřili, že Ježíš je Mesiáš, dlouho očekávaný a často prorokovaný Spasitel, který přišel obnovit víru, kterou Bůh zjevil Abrahamovi před 2000 lety. Ellos creían que Jesús era el Mesías, el Salvador largamente esperado y a menudo profetizado que vino a restaurar la fe que Dios le había revelado a Abraham 2000 años antes. 彼らは、イエスがメシアであると信じていました。メシアは、2000年前に神がアブラハムに明らかにされた信仰を回復するために来られた、長い間期待され、しばしば預言された救い主です。 Eles acreditavam que Jesus era o Messias, o Salvador há muito esperado e muitas vezes profetizado que veio para restaurar a fé que Deus revelou a Abraão 2000 anos antes. İsa'nın, Tanrı'nın İbrahim'e 2000 yıl önce ifşa ettiği inancı geri getirmeye gelen, uzun zamandır beklenen ve sık sık kehanette bulunulan Kurtarıcı olduğuna inanıyorlardı. So à Where would Peter, Andrew, John, James, or Thomas have begun telling the story? Takže à Kde by Petr, Andrew, John, James nebo Thomas začali vyprávět příběh? Entonces, ¿dónde habrían comenzado Pedro, Andrés, Juan, Santiago o Tomás a contar la historia? では、ピーター、アンドリュー、ジョン、ジェームス、またはトーマスはどこから物語を語り始めたのでしょうか。 Öyleyse à Peter, Andrew, John, James veya Thomas hikayeyi anlatmaya nereden başlamış olabilir?

The Apostle John begins his story of Jesus at creation with the words “In the beginning …” We'll come up in time considerably and start with the man known as Jesus of Nazareth engaged in His public ministry; traveling through Northern Israel with a dozen disciples. Apoštol Jan začíná svůj příběh o Ježíši při stvoření slovy „Na počátku…“ Přistoupíme včas a začneme s mužem známým jako Ježíš Nazaretský, zapojeným do Jeho veřejné služby; cestování po severním Izraeli s tuctem učedníků. El Apóstol Juan comienza su historia de Jesús en la creación con las palabras “En el principio...” Avanzaremos considerablemente en el tiempo y comenzaremos con el hombre conocido como Jesús de Nazaret comprometido en Su ministerio público; viajando por el norte de Israel con una docena de discípulos. 使徒ヨハネは、「初めに…」という言葉でイエスの創造の物語を始めます。私たちはかなり間に合い、ナザレのイエスとして知られている人が公の宣教に従事しているところから始めます。十数人の弟子と一緒にイスラエル北部を旅します。 O apóstolo João começa sua história de Jesus na criação com as palavras “No princípio...”. Chegaremos consideravelmente no tempo e começaremos com o homem conhecido como Jesus de Nazaré, engajado em Seu ministério público; viajando pelo norte de Israel com uma dúzia de discípulos. Havari Yuhanna, yaratılışta İsa'nın hikayesine “Başlangıçta…” sözleriyle başlar. bir düzine öğrenciyle birlikte Kuzey İsrail'i dolaşıyor.

At that time, the 1st Century of what modern historians like to called the Common Era, Israel was an uneasy part of the Roman Empire. V té době, v 1. století, které moderní historikové rádi nazývali Common Era, byl Izrael nelehkou součástí Římské říše. En ese momento, el primer siglo de lo que a los historiadores modernos les gusta llamar la Era Común, Israel era una parte incómoda del Imperio Romano. 当時、現代の歴史家が西暦と呼んでいた1世紀、イスラエルはローマ帝国の不安な部分でした。 Modern tarihçilerin Ortak Çağ olarak adlandırdıkları 1. Yüzyılda İsrail, Roma İmparatorluğu'nun huzursuz bir parçasıydı. Unlike some provinces that counted being part of Rome a privilege, Israel loathed their Roman occupiers. Na rozdíl od některých provincií, které považovaly členství v Římě za privilegium, Izrael své římské okupanty nenáviděl. A diferencia de algunas provincias que consideraban un privilegio ser parte de Roma, Israel detestaba a sus ocupantes romanos. ローマの一部であると数えられたいくつかの州とは異なり、イスラエルはローマの占領者を嫌っていました。 Ao contrário de algumas províncias que consideravam ser parte de Roma um privilégio, Israel detestava seus ocupantes romanos. Roma'nın bir parçası olmayı bir ayrıcalık sayan bazı eyaletlerin aksine, İsrail Romalı işgalcilerinden nefret ediyordu. Most Jews resisted more than just political domination by a foreign power; they also despise the Greek culture the Romans brought with them. Většina Židů se bránila více než jen politické nadvládě cizí mocností; pohrdají také řeckou kulturou, kterou s sebou přinesli Římané. La mayoría de los judíos resistieron algo más que la dominación política de una potencia extranjera; también desprecian la cultura griega que trajeron los romanos. ほとんどのユダヤ人は、外国勢力による単なる政治的支配以上のものに抵抗しました。彼らはまた、ローマ人が彼らにもたらしたギリシャ文化を軽蔑している。 A maioria dos judeus resistiu mais do que apenas à dominação política por uma potência estrangeira; eles também desprezam a cultura grega que os romanos trouxeram com eles. Çoğu Yahudi, yabancı bir gücün siyasi egemenliğinden daha fazlasına direndi; Romalıların yanlarında getirdikleri Yunan kültürünü de küçümsüyorlar.

All this stirred the pot of popular expectation among Jews for the arrival of the Messiah who they anticipated would be primarily a political figure. To vše rozvířilo hrnce lidového očekávání mezi Židy ohledně příchodu Mesiáše, o kterém předpokládali, že bude především politickou osobností. Todo esto agitó la olla de la expectativa popular entre los judíos por la llegada del Mesías, que anticipaban sería principalmente una figura política. これらすべてが、主に政治家であると彼らが予想したメシアの到着に対するユダヤ人の間で人気のある期待の鍋をかき立てました。 Tudo isso despertou a expectativa popular entre os judeus pela chegada do Messias, que eles esperavam ser principalmente uma figura política. Scripture foretold He'd replace corruption with paradise; the wicked would be punished, the righteous rewarded, and Israel exalted among the nations. Písmo předpovědělo, že nahradí korupci rájem; bezbožní budou potrestáni, spravedliví odměněni a Izrael povýšen mezi národy. 聖書は、彼は堕落を楽園に置き換えると予告しました。悪しき者は罰せられ、義人は報われ、イスラエルは国々の間で高揚しました。 Messiah would restore David's throne and rule over the affairs of Earth. Mesiáš obnoví Davidův trůn a bude vládnout nad záležitostmi Země. メシアはダビデの王位を回復し、地球の事柄を支配しました。 O Messias restauraria o trono de Davi e governaria os assuntos da Terra.

Some prophets spoke of a war between good and evil that would resolve in the Messiah's victory. Někteří proroci mluvili o válce mezi dobrem a zlem, která se vyřeší vítězstvím Mesiáše. 何人かの預言者は、メシアの勝利で解決するであろう善と悪の間の戦争について話しました。 This flavored the anticipation of many. To podnítilo očekávání mnohých. これは多くの人の期待に味わいました。 Isso alimentou a expectativa de muitos. They cast Rome as the chief adversary Messiah would crush. Obsadili Řím jako hlavního protivníka, kterého Mesiáš rozdrtí. 彼らは、メシアが押しつぶす主な敵としてローマをキャストしました。 Eles lançaram Roma como o principal adversário que o Messias esmagaria.

By the 1st Century, different groups had developed around their belief in what was the right way to prepare for this political Messiah. V 1. století se různé skupiny vyvinuly kolem jejich víry v to, co je správným způsobem, jak se připravit na tohoto politického Mesiáše. 1世紀までに、この政治的メシアに備えるための正しい方法は何かという信念を中心に、さまざまなグループが発展してきました。

The Pharisees devoted themselves to the Law of Moses and religious tradition. Farizeové se věnovali Mojžíšově zákonu a náboženské tradici. パリサイ人たちはモーセの律法と宗教的伝統に専念しました。

The Essenes took a segregationist approach, pursuing holiness by moving to isolated communes to await Messiah's arrival. Esejci zaujali segregační přístup a usilovali o svatost tím, že se přestěhovali do izolovaných obcí, kde čekali na Mesiášův příchod. エッセネ派は分離主義的なアプローチを取り、メシアの到着を待つために孤立したコミューンに移動することによって神聖さを追求しました。 Os essênios adotaram uma abordagem segregacionista, buscando a santidade mudando-se para comunas isoladas para aguardar a chegada do Messias.

Zealots advocated armed resistance against Rome as well as those Jews who collaborated with the hated enemy. Zélóti obhajovali ozbrojený odpor proti Římu i těm Židům, kteří kolaborovali s nenáviděným nepřítelem. Zealotsは、ローマと、憎まれた敵と協力したユダヤ人に対する武力抵抗を提唱しました。 Zealots drew their inspiration from the successful Maccabean Revolt against the Syrian Greeks a couple hundred years before. Zélóti čerpali inspiraci z úspěšného Makabejského povstání proti syrským Řekům před několika sty lety. 熱心党は、数百年前にシリアのギリシャ人に対して成功したマカバイ戦争からインスピレーションを得ました。

A 4th group were the Sadducees who took a more pragmatic approach to the Roman presence & accommodated themselves to the Greco-Roman culture they were convinced would eventually become the status quo. Čtvrtou skupinou byli saduceové, kteří zaujali pragmatičtější přístup k římské přítomnosti a přizpůsobili se řecko-římské kultuře, o které byli přesvědčeni, že se nakonec stane status quo. 4番目のグループは、ローマの存在に対してより実用的なアプローチを取り、最終的には現状になると確信していたギリシャ・ローマ文化に順応したサドカイ派の人々でした。 Sadducees were a minority but held most of the positions of political and religious leadership in Jerusalem. Saduceové byli menšinou, ale zastávali většinu pozic politického a náboženského vedení v Jeruzalémě. サドカイ派は少数派でしたが、エルサレムの政治的および宗教的指導者のほとんどの地位を占めていました。

The last and by far largest group among the Jews of 1st Century is rarely mentioned; the Common People. Poslední a zdaleka největší skupina mezi Židy 1. století je zřídka zmíněna; obyčejný lid. 1世紀のユダヤ人の中で最後のそして群を抜いて最大のグループはめったに言及されません。庶民。 They were neither Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene nor Zealot. Nebyli to ani farizeové, saduceové, esejci ani zélóti. 彼らはパリサイ人、サドカイ人、エッセネ派、熱心党のいずれでもありませんでした。 They were just à Jews; everyday people in covenant with God but preoccupied with fields, flocks, trades, markets, family, & well—Life; the daily grind. Byli to jen à Židé; světští lidé ve smlouvě s Bohem, ale zaujatí poli, stády, řemesly, trhy, rodinou a dobře – Životem; každodenní dřina. 彼らはただのユダヤ人でした。神と契約を結んでいるが、畑、群れ、交易、市場、家族などに夢中になっている日常の人々。毎日のグラインド。 Onlar sadece birer Yahudiydiler; Tanrı ile ahit içinde olan ama tarlalarla, sürülerle, ticaretle, pazarlarla, aileyle ve refahla meşgul sıradan insanlar—Yaşam; günlük eziyet. They held opinions regarding politics and religion but were too busy surviving to join one of the groups who claimed superiority to the others. Zastávali názory na politiku a náboženství, ale byli příliš zaneprázdněni přežitím, než aby se připojili k jedné ze skupin, které prohlašovaly nadřazenost nad ostatními. 彼らは政治と宗教について意見を述べましたが、他のグループよりも優れていると主張するグループの1つに参加するには、生き残るのに忙しすぎました。 Politika ve dinle ilgili görüşleri vardı ama diğerlerine üstünlük iddia eden gruplardan birine katılmak için hayatta kalmakla çok meşguldüler. It was these commoners who were most attracted to Jesus. Byli to právě tito prostí lidé, které Ježíš nejvíce přitahoval. イエスに最も惹かれたのはこれらの庶民でした。 İsa'ya en çok ilgi duyanlar bu sıradan insanlardı. They were drawn to Him because He did a masterful job of refusing to be co-opted by the elites. Byli k Němu přitahováni, protože odvedl mistrovskou práci, když odmítl být kooptován elitami. 彼がエリートに採用されることを拒否するという見事な仕事をしたので、彼らは彼に引き寄せられました。 Seçkinler tarafından tercih edilmeyi reddederek ustaca bir iş çıkardığı için O'na çekildiler.

Jesus came in the traditional mode of a Rabbi, but was anything but traditional. Ježíš přišel v tradičním způsobu rabína, ale byl všechno, jen ne tradiční. イエスはラビの伝統的な様式で来られましたが、伝統的なものではありませんでした。 İsa, bir Haham'ın geleneksel kipinde geldi, ama gelenekten başka bir şey değildi. Like other rabbis, He had disciples who followed Him, but His teaching stood in contrast to theirs. Jako ostatní rabíni měl učedníky, kteří Ho následovali, ale Jeho učení bylo v kontrastu s jejich. 他のラビのように、彼には彼に従う弟子がいましたが、彼の教えは彼らの教えとは対照的でした。 Diğer hahamlar gibi, O'nun peşinden giden öğrencileri vardı, ama O'nun öğretisi onlarınkiyle çelişiyordu. His words carried authority that challenged the thick, hard shell of tradition that had become encrusted round their religion. Jeho slova v sobě nesla autoritu, která zpochybňovala tlustou, tvrdou skořápku tradice, která se usadila kolem jejich náboženství. 彼の言葉は、彼らの宗教の周りにちりばめられた伝統の厚くて固い殻に挑戦する権威を運びました。 Sözleri, dinlerinin etrafını saran geleneğin kalın, sert kabuğuna meydan okuyan bir otorite taşıyordu. Listening to Jesus wasn't like listening to a commentary on Torah, which so many other teachers DID sound like. Poslouchat Ježíše nebylo jako poslouchat komentář k Tóře, jak znělo tolik jiných učitelů. イエスに耳を傾けることは、他の多くの教師がそう聞こえたトーラーについての解説を聞くこととは異なりました。 İsa'yı dinlemek, diğer pek çok öğretmenin yaptığı gibi, Tevrat yorumlarını dinlemek gibi değildi. Listening to Jesus was like listening to Moses himself, explaining what the law was meant to be and do. Naslouchat Ježíši bylo jako naslouchat samotnému Mojžíšovi, vysvětlovat, co má zákon být a co má dělat. イエスに耳を傾けることは、モーセ自身に耳を傾け、律法が何を意味し、何をすべきかを説明するようなものでした。 İsa'yı dinlemek, yasanın ne anlama geldiğini ve ne yapılması gerektiğini açıklamak için Musa'nın kendisini dinlemek gibiydi. Then—Jesus did something that really made people pay attention; He validated His teaching by performing miracles. Potom – Ježíš udělal něco, co skutečně přimělo lidi věnovat pozornost; Své učení potvrdil tím, že dělal zázraky. それから—イエスは本当に人々に注意を向けさせる何かをしました。彼は奇跡を行うことによって彼の教えを検証しました。 Sonra—İsa, insanların gerçekten dikkatini çekmesini sağlayan bir şey yaptı; Mucizeler yaparak öğretisini doğruladı. And not a few. A ne pár. He did many!

It was a tough assignment to carve a path through Jewish society that didn't intersect with the Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots or Sadducees, but Jesus negotiated it perfectly. Byl to těžký úkol razit cestu židovskou společností, která se neprotínala s farizeji, esejci, zélóty nebo saducey, ale Ježíš ji dokonale vyjednal. Ferisiler, Esseniler, Zealotlar veya Sadukiler ile kesişmeyen Yahudi toplumu içinde bir yol çizmek zor bir görevdi, ancak İsa bunu mükemmel bir şekilde müzakere etti. Both His life and teaching powerfully demonstrated genuine Judaism and revealed the shabby counterfeit of the religious pretenders. Jeho život i učení mocně demonstrovaly pravé judaismus a odhalily omšelé padělky náboženských uchazečů. Hem yaşamı hem de öğretisi, gerçek Yahudiliği güçlü bir şekilde kanıtladı ve dindar taklitçilerin eski püskü sahtekarlığını ortaya çıkardı. At first they tried to co-opt Him and turn his rising popularity to their agenda. Nejprve se Ho pokusili kooptovat a obrátit jeho rostoucí popularitu na svou agendu. When He refused to make common cause with them, they turned on Him. Když s nimi odmítl jednat, obrátili se proti Němu.

Jesus furthermore resisted the efforts of the common people to make him King. Ježíš se navíc bránil snahám obyčejných lidí učinit z něj krále. Their hope that He was Messiah swelled to the call that He claim Israel's throne. Jejich naděje, že je Mesiáš, se zvětšila na výzvu, že si nárokuje izraelský trůn. They wanted a political leader. But that was not Jesus' mission & He resisted their attempts to install Him as monarch. Ale to nebylo Ježíšovým posláním a on odolal jejich pokusům dosadit Ho jako panovníka. Jesus' consistent message was the true nature of the Kingdom of God. Ježíšovo konzistentní poselství bylo pravou povahou Božího království. Contemporary Judaism saw that Kingdom as primarily political, military, & economic. Současný judaismus viděl toto království jako primárně politické, vojenské a ekonomické. A realm in which … Říše, ve které…

Israel would rule instead of Rome. Místo Říma by vládl Izrael. Messiah would reign in place of Caesar. Mesiáš měl vládnout místo Caesara. Judaism would replace paganism. Judaismus by nahradil pohanství. And the sandal finally would be on the other foot. A sandál bude konečně na druhé noze. Jesus' message was a much different take on the Kingdom. Ježíšovo poselství bylo mnohem odlišný pohled na Království. It wasn't about politics or economics. Nešlo o politiku ani ekonomiku. It was about the heart, the inner life. Jesus repeatedly emphasized that to be in covenant with God meant to be in an intimate relationship with Him, not as some distant, disinterested deity, but as a loving Father. Ježíš opakovaně zdůrazňoval, že být ve smlouvě s Bohem znamená být s Ním v důvěrném vztahu, ne jako nějaké vzdálené, nezaujaté božstvo, ale jako milující Otec.

Jesus' popularity with commoners created jealousy on the part of the leaders. Ježíšova popularita u prostých lidí vyvolala žárlivost ze strany vůdců. His unblemished example of a warm & endearing godliness revealed the pathetic shabbiness of the merely religious. Jeho neposkvrněný příklad vřelé a roztomilé zbožnosti odhaloval ubohou ošuntělost čistě náboženských lidí. When He cleared the Temple of the fraudulent marketplace the leaders used as a source of income, they decided it was time to get rid of Him. Když vyčistil Chrám od podvodného tržiště, které vůdci používali jako zdroj příjmu, rozhodli se, že je čas se Ho zbavit. They convinced themselves they were only protecting the nation from Rome's wrath against the insurrection they claimed Jesus was sure to lead. Přesvědčili sami sebe, že pouze chrání národ před hněvem Říma proti povstání, o kterém tvrdili, že ho Ježíš určitě povede. They arrested Him, ran Him through a sham-trial, then turned him over to the Romans for execution, saying He encouraged rebellion; a charge Rome took quite-seriously. Zatkli Ho, provedli předstíraný proces a pak ho vydali Římanům k popravě se slovy, že podporuje vzpouru; Řím vzal docela vážně. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, knew he was being played by the Jewish leaders but when they threatened to complain to Rome, already being on thin ice with the Emperor, he relented & turned Jesus over for scourging & crucifixion. Římský místodržitel Pontius Pilát věděl, že ho hrají židovští vůdci, ale když pohrozili, že si budou stěžovat Římu, který už byl s císařem na tenkém ledě, ustoupil a vydal Ježíše k bičování a ukřižování. As they turned away from Jesus' cross late Friday afternoon, they thought, “Good riddance! Když se v pátek pozdě odpoledne odvraceli od Ježíšova kříže, pomysleli si: „Dobré odhození! At least we won't have to worry about Him anymore.” Aspoň se o Něho už nebudeme muset bát."

Yeah, good luck with that. Jo, hodně štěstí.

Ch. Ch. 1 of Bruce Shelley's excellent book Church History In Plain Language begins with this line, “Christianity is the only major religion to have as its central event the humiliation of its God.” 1 z vynikající knihy Bruce Shelleyho Church History In Plain Language začíná touto větou: „Křesťanství je jediné velké náboženství, jehož ústřední událostí je ponížení svého Boha.“

Anyone who's decided to investigate the History of the Christian Church has probably wondered at the astounding success of the Faith in light of its central event & the belief that flows from it. Každý, kdo se rozhodl prozkoumat dějiny křesťanské církve, se pravděpodobně podivil nad ohromujícím úspěchem Víry ve světle její ústřední události a víry, která z ní pramení. An interview with the disciples the day after the crucifixion would in no way give anyone the idea Christianity would one day spread to the ends of the world & number in the billions. Rozhovor s učedníky den po ukřižování by v žádném případě nikomu nepřinesl myšlenku, že se křesťanství jednoho dne rozšíří až na konec světa a bude se počítat v miliardách. The transformation that took place among Jesus' followers after His resurrection is convincing proof of His rising from the tomb. Proměna, která se udála mezi Ježíšovými následovníky po jeho vzkříšení, je přesvědčivým důkazem toho, že vstal z hrobu. The disappointment that marked Jesus' followers immediately after His execution is understandable. Zklamání, které poznamenalo Ježíšovy následovníky bezprostředně po jeho popravě, je pochopitelné. What isn't, is their amazing resurgence to carry on His mission. Co ne, je jejich úžasné oživení, aby pokračovali v Jeho poslání. The only rational explanation for their continuation & the growth of the Jesus movement was the resurrection. Jediným racionálním vysvětlením jejich pokračování a růstu Ježíšova hnutí bylo vzkříšení. By the 1st Century, Judaism had infiltrated much of the Roman Empire and had a small number of converts from among Gentiles in many cities. V 1. století judaismus pronikl do velké části římské říše a v mnoha městech měl malý počet konvertitů z řad pohanů. But these “God-fearers”, as they were called, were a tiny number considering how long Judaism had existed. Těchto „Bohobojných“, jak se jim říkalo, však bylo vzhledem k tomu, jak dlouho judaismus existoval, nepatrný počet. The Jews had never embarked on a campaign to spread their faith. Židé se nikdy nepustili do kampaně na šíření své víry. Gentile converts to Judaism were almost accidental and accommodated in the synagogue reluctantly. Pohané, kteří konvertovali k judaismu, byli téměř náhodní a ubytováni v synagoze neochotně. Yet within a century after the Resurrection, Christianity had spread across the Empire. Přesto se během století po vzkříšení křesťanství rozšířilo po celé Říši. The miraculous growth of the Church stands as eloquent testimony to its miraculous origin. Zázračný růst církve je výmluvným svědectvím jejího zázračného původu.

And now for a little background on the CS podcast. A nyní malé pozadí k CS podcastu.

What you're hearing is a 3rd version of Season 1 of Communio Sanctorum. To, co slyšíte, je 3. verze 1. řady Communio Sanctorum. The number of subscribers has grown tremendously; with many saying they've listened to the episodes multiple times. Počet předplatitelů ohromně vzrostl; mnozí říkají, že epizody poslouchali několikrát. Version 2 contained some material that was time-sensitive; news about podcast awards, a Reformation tour, and such. Verze 2 obsahovala nějaký materiál, který byl citlivý na čas; novinky o podcastových cenách, turné Reformation a podobně. Things that are no longer applicable. Věci, které již nejsou použitelné. I thought it best to redo the series omitting all that. Myslel jsem, že bude nejlepší sérii předělat a to všechno vynechat. The CS website is also being updated and a Spanish version is being produced. Aktualizuje se také web CS a připravuje se španělská verze. It seemed an apropos time to re-record Season 1 with a refresh of the content. Zdálo se, že je vhodný čas znovu nahrát 1. sezónu s obnovením obsahu.

I got turned on to the genius of podcasts a few years ago. Před několika lety jsem se začal zajímat o génia podcastů. Being a history nut, I went looking for my favorite subject – Rome – and found Mike Duncan's brilliant podcast series the History of Rome. Protože jsem se zbláznil do historie, šel jsem hledat své oblíbené téma – Řím – a našel jsem skvělý seriál podcastů Mikea Duncana – Historie Říma. Now hooked, I next devoured Lars Brownworth's 12 Byzantine Emperors & Norman Centuries. Nyní jsem jako další hltal 12 byzantských císařů a normanských století Larse Brownwortha. Then I went in search of a similar format podcast on Church history. Pak jsem šel hledat podobný formát podcastu o historii církve. I was looking for short episodes, easily listened to while working out, going for a run, or working in the yard. Hledal jsem krátké epizody, které se snadno poslouchaly při cvičení, běhání nebo práci na dvoře. All I could find at that time were long lectures, most given in a college or seminary. Jediné, co jsem v té době našel, byly dlouhé přednášky, většinou na vysoké škole nebo v semináři. And while the content was solid, they weren't all that interesting. A i když obsah byl solidní, nebyly až tak zajímavé. What I was looking for were episodes of between 15 & 20 minutes that would break Church history up into easily digested sessions. To, co jsem hledal, byly epizody mezi 15 a 20 minutami, které by rozdělily církevní dějiny na snadno stravitelná sezení. Not finding it, I decided to do it.

So let me be clear. Tak ať mám jasno. I'm not an historian, not even close. Nejsem historik, ani zdaleka. I love history & am a student of it. An historian is someone with access to, and does research on primary level materials. Historik je někdo, kdo má přístup k materiálům primární úrovně a provádí výzkum v nich. An historian is someone who gains familiarity with the past because she/he has interacted in some way with those who MADE history; if not them directly, then with the records and artifacts they left behind. Historik je někdo, kdo se seznámí s minulostí, protože se nějakým způsobem stýkal s těmi, kdo TVORI dějiny; když ne přímo oni, tak se záznamy a artefakty, které po sobě zanechali. All I can do is take the work of real historians, cull it, repackage it, then put it out there for whoever wants to engage it. Jediné, co mohu udělat, je vzít práci skutečných historiků, vyřadit ji, znovu zabalit a dát ji tam, komu se to bude chtít věnovat.

The study of history is by nature filled with dates and names à and that's where many would-be students find their eyes rolling toward the back of their head in utter boredom. Studium historie je od přírody plné dat a jmen à, a to je místo, kde mnoho budoucích studentů zjišťuje, že jejich oči koulejí do týla v naprosté nudě.

While dates & names can't be avoided, this podcast aims at providing a narrative of church history to help contemporary Christians connect to their roots. I když se nelze vyhnout datům a jménům, tento podcast si klade za cíl poskytnout vyprávění o historii církve a pomoci současným křesťanům spojit se s jejich kořeny. To use a well-worn cliché, we really do stand on the shoulders of giants. Použijeme-li otřepané klišé, skutečně stojíme na ramenou obrů. What we'll see is that those giants themselves stand on previous generations who loom large because of the lives they lived and what they accomplished. Uvidíme, že tito obři sami stojí na předchozích generacích, které se rýsují ve velkém díky životům, které žili, a tomu, co dokázali. Hopefully, by discerning our place within that massive edifice we call the Church, we can faithfully provide firm shoulders for the next generation to stand on. Doufejme, že rozpoznáním svého místa v této masivní budově, kterou nazýváme Církev, dokážeme věrně poskytnout pevná ramena pro další generaci, na které bude stát. à That isn't an unfit analogy when you consider both Paul's & Peter's allusion to the church being a building made of living stones. à To není nevhodná analogie, když vezmete v úvahu Pavlovu i Petrovu narážku na to, že církev je stavbou z živých kamenů. I just said CS is aimed primarily at contemporary Christians. Právě jsem řekl, že CS je zaměřen především na současné křesťany. A bit surprising to me is the number of non-Christians who've enjoyed the podcast. Trochu mě překvapuje počet nekřesťanů, kterým se podcast líbil. Many interested in history and wanting to fill out a gap in their knowledge on church history have expressed their appreciation. Mnoho lidí, kteří se zajímají o historii a chtějí vyplnit mezeru ve svých znalostech církevních dějin, vyjádřilo své uznání.

As we end this 1st episode, let me give a quick review on HOW I'll be presenting this History of Christianity & the Church. Až skončíme tuto 1. epizodu, dovolte mi poskytnout rychlou recenzi na to, JAK budu prezentovat tyto Dějiny křesťanství a církve. There are many ways to study history and many theories for interpreting the past. Existuje mnoho způsobů, jak studovat historii a mnoho teorií pro interpretaci minulosti.

One way to recount History is to divide it into Pre-Modern, Modern & Post-Modern. Jedním ze způsobů, jak vylíčit historii, je rozdělit ji na předmoderní, moderní a postmoderní. While defining these categories could devolve into a podcast in itself, let me summarize. I když by se definování těchto kategorií mohlo zvrhnout v podcast sám o sobě, dovolte mi to shrnout.

In Pre-modern times, history was propaganda. It was recorded to promote some agenda, usually of the ruler who commissioned it. Bylo nahráno, aby podpořilo nějakou agendu, obvykle vládce, který ji zadal. You may have heard the saying that it's the winners who write history. Možná jste slyšeli rčení, že dějiny píší vítězové. That's pretty much the way the recording of Pre-modern history was. To je do značné míry způsob zaznamenávání předmoderní historie. Records that painted an alternative view of the officially sanctioned story were rounded up & destroyed. Záznamy, které vykreslovaly alternativní pohled na oficiálně schválený příběh, byly shromážděny a zničeny. Divergent monuments were torn down and scrolls burned to erase the evidence of a substitute view of the way things went down. Rozdílné památky byly strženy a svitky spáleny, aby byly vymazány důkazy o náhradním pohledu na to, jak se věci ubíraly.

In the Modern telling of history, a more scientific approach is applied to recording and interpreting events. V moderním vyprávění historie se k zaznamenávání a interpretaci událostí používá více vědecký přístup. The winners still dominate the main tale, but the voices of the defeated and despised are also considered. Hlavnímu příběhu stále dominují vítězové, ale počítá se i s hlasy poražených a opovrhovaných. While the Modern scientific approach to history is more accurate than the pre-modern version, it's not entirely free from bias in that the Modern Historian still has to speak of events from his or her cultural perspective. Zatímco moderní vědecký přístup k historii je přesnější než předmoderní verze, není zcela bez zaujatosti v tom, že moderní historik stále musí mluvit o událostech ze své kulturní perspektivy. And the selection of what facts to report or neglect is a form of editorial bias. A výběr toho, která fakta oznámit nebo zanedbat, je formou redakční zaujatosti.

The Post-modern approach to history is a largely cynical method based on the idea that truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the mouth of the teller & pen of the writer. Postmoderní přístup k historii je do značné míry cynická metoda založená na myšlence, že pravda, stejně jako krása, je v oku pozorovatele, nebo v tomto případě v ústech vykladače a pera spisovatele. The problem in describing Post-modernism is that it's a philosophy still under construction and resists definition. Problém při popisu postmodernismu je v tom, že je to filozofie stále ve výstavbě a brání se definici. Some Post-modernists would say Post-modernism is an amorphous paradigm. Někteří postmodernisté by řekli, že postmodernismus je amorfní paradigma. The moment you define it, you've said more what it's not than what it is. Ve chvíli, kdy to definujete, jste řekli víc, co to není, než to, co to je. The Post-modern view of history is that nearly all accepted history from both the pre-Modern and Modern eras is suspect precisely because it's accepted. Postmoderní pohled na historii je takový, že téměř všechny přijímané dějiny z předmoderní i moderní éry jsou podezřelé právě proto, že jsou přijímány. There's a visceral and knee-jerk rejection of authority in Post-modernism and nothing is deemed so authoritarian as tradition. V postmodernismu existuje viscerální a trhavé odmítání autority a nic není považováno za tak autoritářské jako tradice. Der er en visceral og knæfaldende afvisning af autoritet i postmodernismen, og intet anses for så autoritært som tradition. As a consequence, post-modern views of history tend to be avant-garde and fringe theories one reads alongside a more traditional view. V důsledku toho mají postmoderní pohledy na historii tendenci být avantgardními a okrajovými teoriemi, které člověk čte vedle tradičnějšího pohledu. Som en konsekvens har postmoderne historiesyn en tendens til at være avantgarde- og udkantsteorier, man læser sammen med et mere traditionelt syn.

Our approach here will be from a Modern perspective. Náš přístup zde bude z moderní perspektivy. Vores tilgang her vil være fra et moderne perspektiv. And while it's impossible to be entirely free of bias, I will try to provide an unfiltered review of the history of Christianity & the Church. A i když je nemožné být zcela bez zaujatosti, pokusím se poskytnout nefiltrovaný přehled dějin křesťanství a církve. A Bibliography of the books & sources I use in researching is available on the Sanctorum.us website. Bibliografie knih a zdrojů, které používám při bádání, je k dispozici na webu Sanctorum.us. Oh – & here's something I found fascinating. Oh – a tady je něco, co mě fascinovalo. People left comments on the iTunes portal page labeling me with all kinds of different religious affiliations. Lidé zanechávali komentáře na stránce portálu iTunes, ve kterých mě označovali různými náboženskými příslušnostmi. Some were convinced I was a Roman Catholic, others that I was Eastern Orthodox, some that I was a 5 pt Calvinist, a few that I was a raving Arminianist. Někteří byli přesvědčeni, že jsem římský katolík, jiní, že jsem východní ortodoxní, někteří, že jsem 5bodový kalvinista, někteří, že jsem šílený arminianista. While the majority of comments gave the podcast high marks, there was some confusion over where I line up theologically. Zatímco většina komentářů dala podcastu vysoké známky, došlo k určitému zmatku ohledně toho, kde jsem teologicky seřadil. No matter how much I try to “Dragnet” it & report just the facts, Ma'am – It's inevitable that my doctrinal bias is going to color the material. Bez ohledu na to, jak moc se to snažím „přetahovat“ a hlásit jen fakta, madam – je nevyhnutelné, že moje doktrinální zaujatost materiál zabarví. When I do move from reportage to opinion or analysis, I'll do my best to mark it off as my opinion. Když přejdu od reportáže k názoru nebo analýze, udělám vše pro to, abych to označil jako svůj názor.

If you're curious who I am & what my theological position is – you can find that on the Sanctorum.us website. Pokud vás zajímá, kdo jsem a jaká je moje teologická pozice – můžete to najít na webu Sanctorum.us. Go to the “Lance's Bio” page. Přejděte na stránku „Lance's Bio“.

Many thanks to Lemuel Dees, a long time subscriber and voice over artist for providing the CS intro and outro and to Dade Ronan at Win at Web for massive help in setting up the new website. Mnohokrát děkuji Lemuelu Deesovi, dlouholetému předplatiteli a umělci hlasu za poskytnutí CS intro a outra, a Dade Ronanovi na Win at Web za masivní pomoc s nastavením nového webu.

Thanks as well to Roberto Aguayo for translating the episodes into Spanish and to John Parra for the intro and outro of the Spanish edition of CS. Děkuji také Robertu Aguayovi za překlad epizod do španělštiny a Johnu Parrovi za intro a outro španělského vydání CS.

There's a final announcement I need to share as we close. Je tu poslední oznámení, o které se musím podělit, až budeme zavírat. To date, CS has been a labor of love I was able to accommodate fairly easily financially. K dnešnímu dni byla CS práce lásky, kterou jsem byl schopen poměrně snadno finančně ubytovat. As the podcast has grown, requiring a LOT more bandwidth, the costs for hosting the audio files has risen dramatically and outstripped my ability to sustain. Jak podcast rostl a vyžadoval MNOHEM větší šířku pásma, náklady na hostování zvukových souborů dramaticky vzrostly a předčily mou schopnost udržet se. So though I was loath to do so, I've had to add a donation feature to the CS page. Takže i když jsem to nechtěl udělat, musel jsem na stránku CS přidat funkci dárcovství. Então, embora eu não gostasse de fazer isso, tive que adicionar um recurso de doação à página do CS. CS is free, but over the years several have asked if they could make a donation. CS je zdarma, ale v průběhu let se jich několik zeptalo, zda by mohli přispět. I didn't have a way to do that, till now. Doposud jsem neměl způsob, jak to udělat. So, hey, if you wanna' – now you have way to do so. ‘Nuff said. "Řekl Nuff."