Yes, you are asking everyone here to believe that this movie might be true, otherwise why would you bring it to our attention? I am starting to think that people will believe anything they read on the internet.
Tradition consists of the teachings that have been handed down from the time of the apostles.
BTW, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture. Without the Catholic Church, you Protestants wouldn't have a Bible.
Finally, there were not many written documents, besides Scripture, before the Council of Nicea since the Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire up until the year 315, when Constantine ended the persecution. Good try.
Look at some of the supposed "experts" that have been called in to lend this documentary credibility:
Dr. Wilson Bryan Key, an internationally recognized embedded imagery expert with over 30 years of expertise as both a former professor at the University of Western Ontario and a wealth of first-hand experiences as a former advertising executive. Key is a MENSA member and author of five books on the subject.
Dr. Stanley Monteith, the nationally syndicated talk show host of Radio Liberty and an accomplished author and lecturer on geopolitics. He has spent more than 30 years researching the causes for America's spiritual and moral decline.
Dr. Marc Oster, an expert in clinical psychology and hypnosis, who now teaches at Argosy University. He is also the past president of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis.
No, I am asking that people keep an open mind. Don't ascribe some motive to me, ok?
The Catholic Church determined the Canon of scripture? Without the Catholic Church you Protestatnts wouldn't have a Bible?
Puhleeze. Take your one liner talking points elsewhere.
The Roman Catholic Church can hardly take credit for the OT portion of the Bible. The Jewish people wrote that. LOL.
As for the New Testament, it will take more than presumption on your part to convince anyone that the RCC wrote the New Testament.
As an example of RC ridiculousness, I do know that the RCC relies on 1 Clement to buttress one of its doctrines - Apostolic Succession.
Peroblem is, is that 1 Clement was either written before or after 88 AD. If it was written before 88 AD, then Clement was not writing it as a so-called "pope", so how does 1 Clement carry any authority, then, since the RCC does not consider 1 Clement as Canonical?
If it was written after 88 AD, then Clement was writing it with the authority of a so-called "pope." Right?
Problem is, is that Clement in 1 Clement, describes the mythical phoenix as an actual living creature!:
"Let us consider that wonderful sign that takes place in eastern lands - that is, in Arabia and the countries around it. There is s certain bird that is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and it lives for five hundred years. When the time of its dissolution draws near for it to die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, myrrh, and other spices. When the time has come, it enters the nest and dies. But as the flesh decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the essence of the dead bird, produces feathers. (Clement of 'Rome'?, 1 Clement c. 96 AD).
Given what Clement says here, if 1 Clement was written by Clement when he was a so-called "pope" then the RCC doctrine of the Apostolic Succession is tied to the mythical phoenix.
And that's a nice albatross hanging around its neck!
You see, not many are aware of the RCC's juicy little secrets...like this one.