6. Franks, Brits, and Pope Gregory 

You are very kind, sir. Thanks for that.

Always a pleasure to have you along!

I am delighted to hear it! Thank you!

I appreciate you kind feedback. Thank you!

Thanks! ...nice to have you along for the ride!

I appreciate that very much. Thank you!

Thank you!

Oh and the merovingians aren't named after Clovis' dad, but his granddad :)

Thank you!

Could you please help me here who is the anglo saxon are they romans and who is the bilderberg are they roman abd who is the zionist jews are they roman

Contact me at: bruce@brucegore.com.

Kay Richardson So many stories, so little time.

Yeah, no time to mention Gaiseric, King of the Vandals. Not such an important person in history, but explains why at least one of your Greek students continues to be a thorn in your flesh. ;) --Anna

You just keep popping up! Blessings my dear!

I always appreciate clarifying feedback. Thank you!

Bruce Gore Given the scope of history you cover, it is amazing how accurate you are. Thank you for the lecture series, I have been looking for something like this for a long time.

They (the vandals)were a big mix many ex roman legion goths from north africa and with many a phonecian like hanibals decendants.....i used to think of them as rome v and al others.

The split took place officially in 1054 a.d.

Different Pope. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, by which he hoped to change the date of Easter. Up until then, Europe adhered to the Julian calendar, first implemented by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. Gregory XIII lived in the late 16th century.

got it, thank you Bruce.

The dual source teaching of the Roman church grew gradually at the beginning of the medieval period. It flowed partly from the huge credibility of the church and its generally positive impact and ministry in Europe after the fall of Rome. The term 'dark ages' is misleading, as the church had a very salutary influence, but gradually became politicized as it increased in power. The doctrine of dual source was affirmed officially and unequivocally at the Council of Trent (16th century) but was the working understanding at a much earlier time. This was what prompted Luther's well-known affirmation of 'sola scriptura.'

Thanks for the perspective. A competent and scholarly review of this fascinating incident may be found in Kenneth Scott Latourette's 'A History of Christianity,' Volume 1, p. 347f (and sources cited therein).

non catholics never get it.

Yes, my very close Catholic friends, with whom I share frequent fellowship, tell me the same thing. ...but I am, after all, a Presbyterian! Thanks for the feedback.

Thank you for your reply. May I suggest that you ask one of your very close Catholic friends to reassure you that nowadays it is not possible to buy indulgences in our Church, contrary to what you said in another lecture. In fact I very much doubt that it was ever possible, even at the time of Luther.

The sale of indulgences under Leo X was condemned both by Trent and then more recently by Bl. Pope Paul VI. Here’s a short overview with the relevant text from Trent and citation to Paul VI’s teaching: www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences As to the present availability of indulgences under the Catholic view, please see: www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/general_conditions.htm Thanks again for your cordial interest.

Thank you very much; perfect. I did not mean to deny that abuses had happened. I surmised that it was never Catholic doctrine, not even at the time of Luther, that indulgences could be purchased.

Giorgio Franc: Any protestant is going to be slightly anti-Catholic at the very least. But I have found Bruce's lecture to be actually quite respectful for the most part. He is not making personal attacks like some preachers. He also has complimented St. Charlemagne, Constantine, and St. Patrick - which many modern protestants and even some Catholics have trouble doing. I like the fact that he looks at history with the knowledge that we cannot judge them by modern day standards - but from their perspective.

Evidence for the three Arian tribes is scant deliberately because the Vatican Antichrist has destroyed it...

It should be noted that Apostolic Christian were in Britain 4 centuries before the Vatican Antichrist, as detailed in the Great Controversy: "No church within the limits of Romish jurisdiction was long left undisturbed in the enjoyment of freedom of conscience. No sooner had the papacy obtained power than she stretched out her arms to crush all that refused to acknowledge her sway; and one after another, the churches submitted to her dominion. In Great Britain, primitive Christianity had very early taken root. The gospel received by the Britons in the first centuries, was then uncorrupted by Romish apostasy. Persecution from pagan emperors, which extended even to these far-off shores, was the only gift that the first churches of Britain received from Rome. Many of the Christians, fleeing from persecution in England, found refuge in Scotland; thence the truth was carried to Ireland, and in all these countries it was received with gladness. When the Saxons invaded Britain, heathenism gained control. The conquerors disdained to be instructed by their slaves, and the Christians were forced to retreat to the mountains and the wild moors. Yet the light, hidden for a time, continued to burn. In Scotland, a century later, it shone out with a brightness that extended to far-distant lands. From Ireland came the pious Columba and his co-laborers, who, gathering about them the scattered believers on the lonely island of Iona, made this the centre of their missionary labours. Among these evangelists was an observer of the Bible Sabbath, and thus this truth was introduced among the people. A school was established at Iona, from which missionaries went out, not only to Scotland and England, but to Germany, Switzerland, and even Italy. But Rome had fixed her eyes on Britain, and resolved to bring it under her supremacy. In the sixth century her missionaries undertook the conversion of the heathen Saxons. They were received with favour by the proud barbarians, and they induced many thousands to profess the Romish faith. As the work progressed, the papal leaders and their converts encountered the primitive Christians. A striking contrast was presented. The latter were simple, humble, and scriptural in character, doctrine, and manners, while the former manifested the superstition, pomp, and arrogance of popery. The emissary of Rome demanded that these Christian churches acknowledge the supremacy of the sovereign pontiff. The Britons meekly replied that they desired to love all men, but that the pope was not entitled to supremacy in the church, and they could render to him only that submission which was due to every follower of Christ. Repeated attempts were made to secure their allegiance to Rome; but these humble Christians, amazed at the pride displayed by her emissaries, steadfastly replied that they knew no other master than Christ. Now the true spirit of the papacy was revealed. Said the Romish leader, “If you will not receive brethren who bring you peace, you shall receive enemies who will bring you war. If you will not unite with us in showing the Saxons the way of life, you shall receive from them the stroke of death.” These were no idle threats. War, intrigue, and deception were employed against these witnesses for a Bible faith, until the churches of Britain were destroyed, or forced to submit to the authority of the pope..." archive.org/details/sda-ellen-g-white-the-great-controversy-1888/page/1/mode/1up