‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

Published 10 months ago by

exodus movie ridley scott christian bale 570x320 Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

Ridley Scott and historical epics are in many ways synonymous (see: 1492: Conquest of Paradise, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood), so it’s fitting that he’s at the helm of the next big Biblical adaptation of 2014, Exodus: Gods and Kings. The film – originally known as simply Exodus – also boasts a rather impressive pedigree of acting talent led by Christian Bale playing Moses – as featured in a newly-released image gallery, offering an early look at such actors as Joel Edgerton (The Great Gatsby) as Ramses and Scott’s Alien leading lady Sigourney Weaver as Queen Tuya (a role handled by Irene Martin in Cecil B. DeMille’s famous 1956 Biblical film, The Ten Commandments).

Indeed, that Charlton Heston-starring rendition of the Moses story has and surely will continue to, cast a long shadow over Exodus, though Bale (during an interview with EW) said that “there was lots of room for us to go places that ‘The Ten Commandments’ never dreamed of going.” Likewise, Scott has long insisted that he’s not so much interested in covering “the big stuff that everybody knows” about the Moses story (though he’s also promised that sequences like the Parting of the Red Sea in Exodus will be “f***ing huge”) –  having told EW“What I thought I knew about Moses I didn’t really.”

Here is some more insight from Scott, on that matter:

“Either I wasn’t paying attention in Sunday school or I had forgotten. I was knocked out by who he was and the basics of the story—it has to be one of the greatest adventures and spiritual experiences that could ever have been.”

In addition to Bale, Edgerton, and Weaver, the Exodus cast includes Ben Kingsley (Iron Man 3) as the Hebrew scholar Nun, Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) as the Hebrew slave Joshua, and John Turturro (Gods Behaving Badly) as the Egyptian Pharaoh Seti I – father to Ramses. The below image gallery offers a sneak peek at certain, but not all, of these players in Scott’s new film.

exodus gods kings images Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

exodus gods kings joel edgerton Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

exodus gods kings scott weaver Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

exodus gods kings bale kingsley Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

exodus gods and kings Exodus: Gods and Kings Images: Ridley Scott Tackles the Moses Story

Per usual, the costumes, scenery, and overall production design by Arthur Max (Scott’s frequent collaborator for nearly twenty years now) for Exodus look as handsome and tangible as that featured in previous historical adventures directed by Scott; then again, few have accused the filmmaker’s polarizing releases in recent years (Prometheus, The Counselor) of being any less visually beautiful than his earlier work.

One of the big wild card factors here is the script, as cooked up by Bill Collage and Adam Cooper (Accepted, Tower Heist); depending on how they’ve re-envisioned the tale of Moses, Scott’s movie could attract more, less, or equal amounts of controversy compared to Darren Aronofsky’s Noah from earlier this year. The writing duo have already been entrusted to work on a number of other big projects in development, so hopefully that’s a sign that we can expect good things from their work on Exodus.

Exodus: Gods and Kings opens in U.S. theaters on December 12th, 2014.

Source: EW

Follow Sandy Schaefer on Twitter @feynmanguy
TAGS: Exodus
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. So let me get this straight and someone please correct me if I’m wrong but there is a moving come out called Exodus: Gods and Kings about Moses setting slaves free out of Egypt and the cast and star is of a non black race. Ummm isn’t Egypt in Africa? Or did I miss something. Who is Christain Bale playing in the movie as well is Sigourney Weaver? So Hollywood is saying we couldn’t find any black actors or actresses to play any of these rolls. Oh wait Hollywood will only support films about black people being pimps, hoes, black men dressed up as women, and anything else that shows us in a negative like. I see Racistwood has no problem putting darker skin black males in the background in a much lower position in the movie If you always show someone negativity about themselves do be surprised if they start to believe it and act out, we have be deleted out of the history books and anything else that shows us in a positive way.

  2. Ridley Scott was correct to use white actors.

    Adam, Esau, King David and Jesus were all said to be ‘red’, in the biblical texts. This has traditionally been thought to imply they were redheads. And all the Greek heroes were ‘golden haired’.

    Which is why Muslims dye their hair red. They do so to look like Muhummad, and yet Muhummad was simply trying to look like the previous prophet, Jesus. The Talmud also says Jesus had freckles, which is a trait of redheads. And redheads in Syria are called ‘Issa’. But Issa is the Arabic name for Jesus.

    Take a look at any Medieval illustration of Mary Magdalene, and she is a red head. This is not simply a Western stereotype, this is what the texts said.


    Please see:
    Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs
    Tempest and Exodus
    Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots

    • There are many shades of black people IE “redbone, light skinned, jet black, brown skinned, black hair, brown hair, red hair”. Not all ancient Africans where jet black. Its hilarious that people think in order to be a lighter toned black person they have to be biracial. The ancient Egyptians were Black Africans, who were over run and fled into the Sudan and Ethiopia areas. Pay close attention to the Sphinx and many other ancient Egyptian artifacts, the features are black. Full lips, wider nose, narrower skull. Archeologist findings have reported the same, concluding that these ancient Egyptians bones structures and density are of black characteristics. Read the the writing of R.K. Harrison, Merrill F. Unger, both well known “white” scholar of the times. In order for slavery to be as successful as it was an entire history of a race had to be destroyed and stolen.

    • Ralf Ellis you are so wrong. You got to read the bible. The bible’s word for red in Hebrew was not red as in white red but as ruddy which is dark brown reddish. All you need to look at are the paintings and mummies of ancient Egypt and you would easily know that they were NOT white or even Arabic. They had a specific complexion color for the Arabs, whitetish race, dark black race, and East African race. If you just studied the races around modern Egypt like the Nubians and the Ethiopian/Eritrean people you could actually see the painting of the ancient Egyptians of themselves to look just like the East Africans, plus they are geographically close so of course the should look alike. The Egyptians were described by ancient texts of being black and with Wholly hair. Moses,Paul and many of the ancient Israelites were thought to be Egyptian by the nations who saw them.Even white people agree to this including Jewish rabbis.There are so many more that I can’t fit into this post. Also where does the Bible describe Jesus as ruddy?

      • >>The bible’s word for red in Hebrew was not
        >>red as in white red but as ruddy.

        What rubbish, it does not mention ‘ruddy’ at all.
        Try reading the Tanakh in Hebrew, not English.

        In 1Sam 16:12 the verse says ‘admoniy and yawfeh’ which means ‘red and fair’. The word admoniy comes from adam, meaning ‘red’.

        As the venerable and renown theologian Adam Clarke says of King David and this verse:

        “I believe the word here means red-haired, he had golden locks. Hair of this kind is ever associated with a delicate skin and florid complexion.”

        So lets have less of the Afro-centric racism, shall we.


        • Wow man, are you trying to tell me that you read and speak ancient Hebrew. Medieval english varies from modern english let alone one of the first languages spoken. FYI I wasn’t using english but Hebrew word ruddy. First off let me get a few things straight. You said that in Hebrew it says “admoniy and yawfeh”, which you say means “red and fair”. So lets get this straight. Your going to sit there and tell me that ancient Israel which is located in the Middle East was actually filled with white people some who were redheaded? What do you take me for, stupid? Before the “Ashkenazi” jews came along mainly after the World Wars the population in Israel were of Arab origins.They could have easily said they were the real Israelites. Well in fact after Israel was divided into two one being Israel and the other Judah the Israel tribes were sacked by the Assyrians. Afterwords the tribe of Israel became a “mixed” nation who were called Samaritans. The southern tribe, Judah, were still intact since they survived that era and they wanted nothing to do with them calling them impure and immoral. Soon they too were invaded but by the Babylonians. Many years later the Ottoman empire controlled all of Israel and Arabs engulfed the area. So going back to what you said about the David being red and fair. Don’t you know that even among blacks there is distinction between their skin tones. I lived near Ethiopians once and they had a word they used to describe other lighter skinned Ethiopians who were in fact dark compared to Arabs, whites, and Asians. The word was “Keey” which means red. So you see, you are assuming too much and reading out of the context. You can’t just read “red” and assume redheaded Europeans you have to understand their surroundings and history. Will two black parents give birth to white babies or white parent give birth to black babies? No but they will use terms to distinguish among themselves such as the black parents describing their child light while not meaning “white” and the white parents describe theirs as dark while not meaning “black”. Just look at what history has given you such as the ancient depictions of the Israelites by the Egyptians and the Assyrians dipicting them black.
          Also if you are going to quote something for me use the Bible not what some old white guys said. Weren’t it the “professors” and the well renown “Egyptologists” that denied the Nubians of being black (now a known fact)because blacks were not Superior enough to control such large and powerful country like Egypt. So don’t quote some old white professors opinions but the fact that comes from the BIBLE.

  3. One thing is for sure, they were not white!!

    • Why not? A white ocker Aussie will be as bronzed as any Egyptian in a wall-painting. The fact that the ancient Egyptians had sun-tans, does not mean that they are not white.

      Look at the Jews, who lived in Egypt for centuries. Are they black? No. Conversely, look at modern Egyptians. Do you see thousands of black African phenotypes in Egypt? No.


      • @ralph ellis what you said is everything that is wrong with the education system today.

        lol @ your comment “for centuries” when this incident would have taken place several THOUSAND years ago, centuries are baby time.

        lol @ your lack of understanding history, Roman and European obsessions and invasions of Egypt over time making the skin color makeup of what it is today.

        lol @ at your inablity to understand that the way the skin color makeup of Egypt in 2000AD is no where near what it looked like in 2000BC

        The fact that you don’t understand any of those three points kind mutes your argument. Until you can understand point number 2 at a bare minimum, I don’t think you even began to comprehend human history. You are the type of person that thinks since horses exist in America now, it surely must have always been that way.

        • >>The fact that you don’t understand
          >>any of those three points.

          Yeah, like every single African gene has disappeared from Egypt – just like that. The Jews don’t have African phenotypes, and neither do modern Egyptians – but Egypt was African, honest.

          And on the tomb friezes, the Africans are clearly Africans and the Egyptians are clearly different – bronzed Caucasians. And yet you still insist that these bronzed Caucasians were African.

          Frankly, your attitude is pure racism.


          • @ralellis
            I can’t tell whether I should laugh at you or cry. I am more inclined to cry cuz it’s like you don’t know anything, and that lack of education is sad.

            Let’s see how your logic works. The majority of Americans are white. So if we made a movie about the people who lived in that area back in 2000BC we’d make them all white right? Since what the majority of American’s look like for the last few centuries is what they have always looked like… even 4 thousand years ago… right?


          • Dude are you really saying that after thousands of years intermarriage with Romans, Greeks, and Arabs that modern Egypt should still have some African features? Seriously? Look at many Americans who have African ancestory but don’t look an inch black with black phenotypes like Shailene Woodley or even Anatole Broyard whose black lineage can be counted on one finger while modern Egyptian ancestors are thousand of years ago. Some might not even have intermarried. And “bronzed Caucasian” really? You can do better than that. Why are you so obsessed with wanting them to be CAUCASIAN? Not even modern Egyptians are white.

            • >>Dude are you really saying that after thousands of years intermarriage
              >>that modern Egypt should still have some African features?

              Yes. Or are you saying that Caucasian genes are sooo superior, that they always nullify all black genes? Now that is pure racism from the other angle. Is that what you are saying?

              In reality, if black and Caucasian genes mix you get a people like the Haratine Berbers of Morocco and Algeria – who are recognizably semi-black African.

              But we do not see that in Egyptian art.

              We see black Nubian people. (This is the 18th dynasty):

              And we see Egyptian people. (This is the 18th dynasty):
              Girls who, if anything, look a little Persian:

              Nefertiti, who looks Greek. I has a Greek girlfriend who looked exactly like this:

              Notice any black skin?
              Notice any African features?

              No. So your continued intransigence simply proves that you are not being objective – you have an agenda, and you are sticking to it.


              • @ralfellis

                Define “African features”.

              • @ralfellis

                “But we do not see that in Egyptian art.”
                Please observe this work of art of Nefertiti


                Then answer my prior question since it won’t allow edits.
                Namely, “African features”, define that.

                • >>Please observe this work of art of Nefertiti

                  Geeez, do you know nothing about ancient Egypt?

                  Akhenaton and Nefertiti were normal Western looking people, and we know this because we have normal images of them. I have just shown you one. But they also commanded their artists and sculptors that they should be portrayed in this strange elongated fashion.


                  Some historians say they had a a disease. But this is a stupid suggestion, as we also have normal images of them into their older age. So this elongated imagery was merely a fashion. But why? This is important stuff – can you imagine a modern Western, Russian or Chinese leader ordering grotesque images on themselves to be drawn?

                  So why did they do it?

                  The best explanation, is that this imagery looked like the gods, as they saw them. Akhenaton and Nefertiti were being drawn in the image of the gods. And it is no coincidence that Hollywood does the same today, with its imagery of the ‘Grey’. Where do you think that imagery came from?


                  • @ralfellis

                    Idk what to say because I can’t tell if that is sarcasm or not.
                    “Akhenaton and Nefertiti were normal Western looking people, and we know this because we have normal images of them.”

                    I mean, that has to be sarcasm. Normal Western looking people? Normal images?

                    Now that I’m rereading your other comments, I can’t even tell what point you are trying to make.
                    For instance, “Or are you saying that Caucasian genes are sooo superior, that they always nullify all black genes?” If not, how do you explain what happen to the Americas changing from 1400AD to 2000AD, or South Africa. Or was normal Western looking people always the majority there since… always?

                    Either you are trolling, or you have really dry sarcasm.

                    • >>Normal Western looking people? Normal images?

                      You obviously have no idea about Egyptology.

                      We have deliberately distorted statues of Akhenaton and Nefertiti, and non-distorted statues of Akhenaton and Nefertiti. The non-distorted images are ‘normal’ – i.e.: not deliberately distorted. Get it now?

                      And the ‘normal’ images prove that Akhenaton and Nefertiti did not really look like their distorted images.


                    • Great points.

                    • That was meant for Kofybean.

  4. That doesn’t mean that all Egyptians are black..

    • Not are. Were

  5. THE ancient Israelites like modern INDIGENOUS MIDDLE EASTERN JEWS ARE NOT BLACK! Ancient Egyptians CAME IN ALL COLOURS!

    • Seriously? Where are you getting these “facts”.

  6. Ridley Scott should stick to alien movies at least he gets their “ethnicity” correct…i won’t support this film like so many other Hollywood’s “ethnic color washing” films. Oh by the way, the original Jews were found to be from Ethiopia and they were dark – skinned Africans. Peace….

    • Peace

  7. The final word:

    The mummy of Ramesses II was taken to France in 1985 for preservation. The mummy was also forensically tested and the results determined that:

    “Hair astonishinghy preserved showed some complementary data – especially
    about pigmentation: Ramses II was a ginger haired cymnotriche leucoderma.”

    Professor Pierre-Fernand CECCALDI, Forensic Scientist, Criminal Identification Laboratory of Paris.
    (Bulletin de l’Academie de médecine – Volume 171, Issue 1. p119)


  8. Basically this is typical Hollywood painting black and bad and white as good and not educating the world on the facts of the world.
    The whole of history is twisted and the truth needs to be told.
    The lies are so deep even the people who tell the lies start to believe their own lies.
    Adam and Eve is pure fiction but what happened in Egypt is there for all to see and certain facts about Egypt are not taught because it conflicts with the lies taught by christianity.
    Teach black people their history and stop keep them in your mental slavery.
    Dats my word!!

  9. Whether one believes that the ancient egyptians were white or black, well then believe as you wish. But if one is not tied into the PC way of formulating an opinion, then I for one pleads guilty. I take the bible at facevalue and as being very historical and unbias. The region of Armenia and the Caucasus was the settlement of the progenitors of all humanity. According to the bible, humanity sprang from eight people that disperse from there to various regions around the world. A much larger group also dispersed from lower Mesopotamia. Humanity started out anew with a family of eight. Noah,his wife, their three sons and their wives. According to the bible, Japeth settled in the region north of the Caucasus and Armenia. From there various clans developed which led to Caucasians. Shem settled in the region south of there, which is the Middle East, and Asia. It is important to remember that during these dispersions, rapid changes or adaptations were occuring in the human gene pool. Previous to this, there were no distinction in language, ethnicity or race. But as clans became isolated and interbred, tribes began taking on certain peculiarities. Ham and his discendants settled also in limited areas of Middle East and Asia. But the bulk of his clan settled in the Nile valley and the river delta. The ancient egyptians believed Mizraim to be their forefather. The bible states that Ham’s sons were Cush, Mizraim, Canaan and Phut. Phut’s descendants settled farther south, even to the tropics. Just as the ancient tribes of the Canaanites, Amalikites etc. are extinct, so are the ancient egyptians. The reality is that the egyptians were a distinct people, like the nubians of Phut, or like the Sytians of Meshech, or Gomer, or Javan, all sons or descendants of Japeth, of whom the caucasians sprang. All these tribes are extinct. The ancient egyptians were neither black or white, but I would have to say that they share a closer affinity to the black race, seeing they share a common family heritage. There are ancient clans that go farther back than the sythians of the Caucasus, of which the white race share little in common, but like the modern blacks to the egyptians, there is a common progenitor.

  10. Its so odd. When there’s a movie about Zeus or Thor everyone recognizes the fictional nature of those magical stories. Yet so many people even right here in this comment section assert that these magical christian stories are real. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. Our species needs to grow up.
    As for this movie, as long as its written, directed and acted well then I’ll enjoy it as much as any other well done piece of entertainment because I can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

    source: http://www.cinemagates.com/exodus-gods-kings/

    • Anna please do not get worked-up or trouble in spirit about what others believe. You are free as a bird to hold that Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isach, Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Jerimiah, King Ahab, Jezebel, etc., to be all fictitious characters as Zeus or Thor. That is your right, if you so wish. I on the other hand, for good reason, accept the bible as reliable and historical. I can give many reasons why I hold that opinion, but the most important reason is because the historicity of Jesus cannot be dispputed. In adition to Jesus being a historical figure, I also believe that He is who He said that He is. Now if I accept Him as God come down in human flesh, just as His deciples did, then logic would tell me that His upholding of scripture as being reliable and historical is also trustworthy. I have a question for anyone who doubt the historicity of the bible. Have you paid any attention to what is constantly being discovered in archaeological excavations in Israel and vicinities? The discoveries of the Moabite stone, the Ugaritic texts, the Ebla and Nuzi tablets, the discovery of the Mari letters, the Lachish ostraca, (I can go on and on) all tesify to the reliability and antiquity of the bible.

      • >>You are free as a bird to hold that Noah and Abraham, … are fictitious
        >>characters as Zeus or Thor. That is your right, if you so wish.

        The problem is that this is a very recent ‘right’, only gained through much mockery and bravery. There have been many millions who have been burned at the stake or otherwise murdered, for demanding that very same freedom.

        Just because X-ianity is on the back foot does not mean we can relax. Look at the terrors inflicted by Islam, on those who reject that belief system – stealing hundreds of girls into sex-slavery and lining up the men in pits to be shot. Those terrors could come back to Europe, if we relax.


        • ralfellis, a most valuable and much enlightening task I would recommend to you is to, without bias, examine the chief conerstone of each religion, Jesus and Muhammad, and decide who you should fear or serve.

          • .

            As to choosing between Jesus and Muhummad as secular leaders, I think the choice is obvious, for anyone from the civilised world. People wonder why ISIS are being so brutal in Syria, when it is perfectly obvious that this organization are merely adopting the true tenets of Islam, as dictated in the Koran. Thus we find that:

            ISIS is taking unbeliever women as sex slaves. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee … the milik al-yamin (those
            whom thy right hand possess) of those whom Allah has given to you as
            spoils of war” Koran 33:50.
            (The milik al-yamin are effectively sex-slaves.)


            ISIS is beheading unbelievers. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off
            their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Koran 8:12


            ISIS is crucifying unbelievers. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and
            strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
            murdered or crucified. Koran 5:33


            ISIS is mutilating unbelievers by cutting off limbs on opposite sides. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive
            to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should … have their hands and
            their feet cut off on opposite sides. Koran 5:33


            ISIS is burning unbelievers. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            Garments of fire have been prepared for the kuffer unbelievers. Scalding
            water will be poured upon their heads to melt their skins and that which is
            in their bellies; and they shall be lashed with rods of iron. If they try to
            escape, they shall be dragged back and told, ‘taste the torment and the
            Fires’. Koran 22:19


            ISIS is subjugating unbelievers. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            Fight those to who the scriptures were given and do not believe in Allah …
            until they are … in absolute submission. Koran 9:29


            ISIS is a protection racket, forcing unbelievers to pay protection money. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            Fight those to who the scriptures were given, and do not believe in Allah …
            until they pay the jizya protection money. Koran 9:29


            ISIS is making war on unbelievers. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course…..

            Make war on the kuffer unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal harshly
            with them. Koran 9:73


            ISIS is taking over unbeliever’s lands. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course…..

            Do they not see how we invade their lands and diminish their borders? Koran 13:40


            ISIS is killing unbeliever children. Where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

            And as for the boy (I killed), his parents were Muslims and we feared lest he
            should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. Koran 18:80 (Hence the many ‘honour killings’ by Muslim parents.)


            No civilised person, would chose Muhummad in preference to Jesus, as a secular leader of the world.


        • ralfellis, you wrote, “Just because X-ianity is on the back foot does not mean we can relax. Look at the terror inflicted by Islam.” Then in your latest post, you began cataloguing a list of atrocities done by followers of Muhammad, because of the inspiration given in the Koran. I guess I’m missing the connection between X-ianity (Christianity?)and the “terror inflicted by Islam.” If you’re trying to say that both christianity and Islam are guilty of terror, I would regretfully concur. But there is a saying that goes, “the fish rots from the head.” Getting back to a comment you made about christianity? being “on the back foot.” I would just like to bring to your memory about what christians suffered during the reign of the ceasars like Caligula and Nero. But here we are, still christians, after 2000 yrs of great persecution. Make no mistake, we’ll still be around for the finale.

          • >>If you’re trying to say that both christianity
            >>and Islam are guilty of terror.

            Yes, my point was that Xianity used to be as infused with persecution and terror as Islam – well, not quite. That is why Xianity lost out to Islam, because it was not quite so violent. Islam was devised as a book of war and subjugation, to assist Muhummad (who was a petty warlord) in his battles with the Meccan army. Islam was created as a protection racket, and it still is.


            As to Xianity being persecuted under Nero, you are wrong there.

            What Xians will not tell you, is that there was a clear distinction between the Nazarene Church of Jesus and James, and the Simple Judaic Church of Saul. In fact, they were enemies, and Saul used to mock the Church of Jesus mercilessly, especially about circumcision. (Saul said, if the Church of Jesus like circumcision so much, they should cut their entire penis off and have done with it….)

            It was the Church of Saul that won this competition, while the Church of Jesus and James sank into obscurity. Thus Xianity has NOTHING to do with Jesus or James – it was the creation of Saul.

            So when we come to the persecutions, if you read the texts all of this Roman persecution was against the desposyni – the descendants of the family of Jesus. Why? Because Jesus was a king, the King of the East. The Roman emperors did not fear a ‘carpenter’,** they feared a powerful monarch who may take the throne of Rome. That is why, at the crucifixion, Jesus was dressed in the purple cloak (of the Roman Emperor) and a crown of thorns (the state crown of Edessa). He was being dressed as a pretender to the throne of Rome.

            ** A tekton carpenter means ‘Freemason’ in Greek.


            • A film that has messed up on casting so much that its getting banned in places, should really not have anyone defending it unless its their money making it, or them acting in it.

              I saw civilised world being mentioned and normal, also Bible at face value lol dear oh dear.

              My view on the history of this world would be wasted on this page but the thing that gets me is a child like view of the world using child like things as proof. Truth my dear Ralf Ellis, I think its beyond your understanding you must first leave your box and web gained knowledge before you can talk to anyone about Kemet.
              The second thing you need to do is stop looking at it as the birth of all things great, the world is an amazing place with many different cultures histories and myths. Next you be telling people the the ancient Olmec civilization were not black too.

              lol civilised world its because of propaganda like this and people who think like you why we are in this mess in the first place, you should have stayed the hell away from us!!! its sad you still to this day don’t realise what you have done and the pain its caused.

              • >>One Mind
                >>Ralf Ellis, I think its beyond your understanding you must first leave
                >>your box and gained knowledge before you can talk about Kemet.

                One Mind – or shall we call you Closed Mind – I have worked in Kemet for many years, so I think I know a reasonable amount about this subject. While you? I doubt if you even have a passport. Ask your mother, if you can apply for one.


                P.S. If you dared call an Egyptian an African, you would receive a black eye pretty quickly.

                • So now you are saying that Kemet is not in Africa now wow and I know many Egyptians and none of the them would do that .

                  Also you do know this film is banned in Egypt and Morocco right.

                  Strange the way you talk does not seem to me as someone well travelled or who has lived or worked in Africa please do not lie to try and reinforce your little lies.

                  Please don’t mention silly things about mums and passports it really just shows everyone who you really are, not everyone works on the same thinking patterns as you and yours are pretty basic and easy to read.

                  Now lets get down to some real talk about this film and not foolish western branding the only good thing the west is good for is killing and trying to make themselves seem important in a world that is older than your mentality can handle.

            • ralfellis wrote, “Xianity used to be infused with persecution and terror as Islam…” On the surface it may appear that your inference is correct, but a deeper understanding of what christianity is all about would show quite the opposite. But first let me touch a little on what you said about the so called “Church of Jesus and James,” and “the Simple Judaic Church of Saul.” There is a partial truth to your premise, about a seeming division in the embryonic church. But contrary to your conclusion, the division was neither permanent nor beyond repair as you seem to suggest. The disagreement between the church at Jerusalem and Paul, who was commission to preach to the non-Jews or gentiles was quite natural in any organization. Peter was adamant that all belivers in Christ, whether jew or gentile, should still perform the ritualistic laws of the jews. Paul on the other hand, held that Christ sacrificial death broke down the wall of seperation between jew and gentile. Not until Peter was given a dream by the Holy Spirit, of a sheet descending from heaven filled with all sort of animals, did it begin to dawn on him that God is no respector of persons. Eventually Peter realized that salvation has also come to the non-jews, and that to all men everywhere, without the cumbersome ceremonial ritualistic customs of the jews. Peter and Paul rejoicenow knowing that the good news (the Gospel)is to be preached in all the world. The breach was mended, and the Church of Jesus Christ went forth triumphantly (symbolized by the rider on the white horse in the Revelation)to the great tribulation and persecution of the Roman Empire (please read the Annals of Tacitus) and the fires of the Dark Ages. As to the Church being a persecuting power in it origin much like Islam has been and still is, that is way off base, to say the least. To prove my point, I’ll refer you to what Jesus said to the authorities during His arrest. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36 And when Peter drew his sword to defend his Master, Jesus commanded him to put it away. Now contrast that with Muhammad. It is not what the followers do, but it is what the Masters demonstrate and teach. Let that point sink in. But still Jesus recognized the authority of the state to enforce laws. As God’s Church grew and expanded and became mighty in power and authority, and took Caesar’s seat, it began changing its image to a persecuting power, and did not spare its enemies. It abrogated the principles Christ set down as a guide post – for His kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is above, and it not instituted by any man, for God Himself has promise to bring it to pass. Then in the great providence of God, the Great Reformation began, and the reign of terror began to subside. Yet still we wait for His Kingdom come.

              • >>Eventually Peter realized that salvation has also come to
                >the non-jews, and that to all men everywhere.

                When Peter had his revelation, this only meant that HE had changed sides and joined the Church of Saul. It does NOT mean that the Church of Saul was reconciled with the Church of Jesus. Quite the opposite – when the Romans were hunting for the desposyni (the family of Jesus) the Church of Saul helped them.


                As to Jesus not being a warrior monarch you have that wrong too. Do remember that it was Jesus who said:

                Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Math 10:34

                But my enemies, who would not allow me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27

                Admit the truth, for a change. Jesus was a warrior king who was fighting for a secular realm as much as he was any new form of Nazarene Judaism.


                P.S. When Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, he was absolutely correct – his kingdom was in Edessa, in northern Syria. He was quite plainly saying to Pilate that he was not claiming to be the king of Judaea, he was merely the king of Osrhoene – which he was, with its capital city of Edessa.


                • When the belivers in Jerusalem and Damascus learned of the conversion of Paul, they were hesitant at first to accept it. Even the Jewish leaders who sent him to persecute the christians were amazed at his conversion. The Jews in Damascus hated him now and wanted him dead, so he fled back to Jerusalem into the protection of the ones he persecuted, Christ’s disciples. (Acts chapt. 9) Please read what transpired at the council at Jerusalem in Acts chapt 15. That it was not an incident that split the church in any way shape or form. I cannot help it if that is what you want to believe, but that cannot be substantiated by any reputable biblical historian. You wrote,”When Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world, he was ablolutely correct – his Kingdom was in Edessa, in northern Syria.” Unless Jesus did not have a proper concept of what the word “WORLD” meant, then you may have a point, but I doubt it. Do you suppose that when He was tempted by the devil, and was shown all the kingdoms of the “WORLD”, He, Christ, may have thought that the devil may have only been referring to Edessa? Quite frankly, I think not. Jesus holds three offices that runs consecutively. First the title of Prophet: Acts 3:22-24 Mat 13:57 The Jews expected a Messianic King that would vanquish the Romans. Instead He came among them as a Prophet, and suffered the fate of a prophet by being put to death. (Past tense) Second, the title of Priest: Hebrews 4:14 , Hebrews 5:5-10 After His Resurrection and Ascension, He now ministers in the Heavenly Temple before the Father as High Priest on the behalf of all believers. (Present tense) Third, the title of King: Ephesians 5:5, Hebrews 1:3, Rev 1:5-8 At His trial before Annas and Caiaphas, the highest tribunal of the land, Jesus swore and oath. That their own eyes one day will see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of Power, coming in the clouds of heaven to usser in His Kingdom. He will then take His rightful place upon the throne of David and reign on the earth as King of kings. (Future prophecy) You quoted Mat 10:34 where Jesus says that He come not to bring peace but a sword. You fail to grasp the meaning Jesus tried to convey. In this passage Jesus is referring to “TRUTH.” Truth divides, it also seperates, it also cuts asunder. Yes it brings division, even in families. In the book of Revelation 19:15, it speaks symbolically of Christ, with a sharp sword protroduing from His mouth. That “SWORD” symbolize the WORDS coming from His mouth. In Ephesian 6:17, the word of God is spoken of as being a sword. His WORDS cause division, and with it, He will destroy His enemies at His coming. That has not happened yet, but only when He returns as King to execute judgement. So you either have misread, or misunderstood that passage. You also quoted from Luke 19:27, about bringing His enemies before Him and killing them. Giving the impression that that was the nature of Christ during His Prophetic Ministry while on earth.

                  • Are there any eyewitness accounts of Jesus excuting anyone? Quite the opposite, He defended the guilty and the accused. If He wanted to, He could have dispatch the Roman host with a bat of an eye, long before He was taken to the cross. Jesus spoke and taught in parables. The passage says,”he added and spake a parable about a “CERTAIN NOBLEMAN” who went away to a far country to receive his kingdom and plan to return. Jesus is making and analogy pertaining to Himself. The judgement of the unfaithful servant will be executed at the end of the world on the day of judgement day.

                    • >>Jesus is making and analogy pertaining to Himself.

                      Don’t be silly. The parable of the nobleman obviously ends on verse 24. Verses 26 and 27 are Jesus talking about himself. All theologians agree with this, but also agree that verse 27 is ‘troubling’. Here are some theologians views:

                      John Greenhalg says:
                      …the Jews on whom He had rights as king, their will was against Him

                      John Gill
                      [enemies] Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah. [kill them] Which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem.

                      Adam Clarke:
                      …the Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans

                      Ah, yes, so this killing was actually ‘god’ killing the Jews, because they would not accept Jesus as the King of the Jews. Nice god, eh? Nice religion, Christianity, eh?

                      But what this does demonstrate is that:
                      a. Jesus was a real king – an important man with a crown and all that.
                      b. This was a secular realm he was fighting for, otherwise real people would not have to be killed.

                      So we come back to my original premise – Jesus was a real king who was fighting for the throne of Judaea and Rome. And there was just such a king – the king who started the Jewish Revolt in Judaea, and his name was King Izas Manu VI of Judaea and Edessa. He tried to become King of Judaea, as a stepping stone to becoming King of Rome, and this is why the Romans became involved in this local dispute.

                      But King Izas’ revolt was defeated. He was then crucified, taken down early (by Josephus), survived (i.e.: ‘came back to life’), and sent into exile – and we hear no more about him. Oh, except for a Roman comment that he limped and had a dislocated shoulder, which is not surprising really – and he bestowed the royal kingship and the Star Prophesy upon Vespasian (who was a commoner). This is the real history, that the gospel fairy story was based upon. See ‘Jesus, King of Edessa’.

                      Oh, and one last thing. Why did nobody tell you about verse Luke 19:27 before, eh? A little bit selective in their teaching, aren’t they. Why is that, you might wonder. It is because there are hidden truths, that they do not want you to see. Go out and look for them. For as the great Gnostic sages of that era used to say – ‘there are none so blind and those who WILL not see….’

                      Will you allow yourself to see clearly?
                      Or will you close your eyes again?


                  • >>(bring a sword) You fail to grasp the meaning Jesus tried to convey.

                    Don’t be silly.

                    Read Luke 19:43. This is a real description about the very real, secular Siege of Jerusalem. Yes, Vespasian did indeed: “cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. And they shall lay thee (down) level with the ground.”

                    This is an accurate description of the Siege of Jerusalem, as all theologians acknowledge.

                    Adam Clarke:
                    This was literally fulfilled when this city (of Jerusalem) was besieged by Titus.

                    But the Jewish Revolt was a real secular Revolt. It is real history and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the spiritual revolution that you so desperately seek.

                    Furthermore, this very same Jewish Revolt was commanded and led by King Izas (Em) Manu (el) VI of Edessa. Do you see the gospel history now?

                    Oh, and one last thing. Why did nobody tell you about the history of Edessa before, eh? A little bit selective in their teaching, aren’t they. Why is that, you might wonder. It is because there are hidden truths, that they do not want you to see. Go out and look for them. For as the great Gnostic sages of that era used to say – ‘there are none so blind and those who WILL not see….’

                    Will you allow yourself to see clearly?
                    Or will you close your eyes again?


                    • ralfellis, you have not rebutted any of the points that I made concerning Christ messianic role as a prophet, his present role as high priest, and his prophetic prediction as coming king. This is no disparagement, but there is no solid coherence to any of your arguments. It all seem to be “The Gospel Of Ralfellis.” You also seem to have the tendency of jumping to conclusion about where I stand on a particular topic. A good example is with your latest text dealing in Luke 19. You seem to always falter when it comes to deciphering scripture. Perhaps you may just lack knowledge of the various methods Christ used in reaching the multitudes during his earthly ministry. One of His chief methods was speaking in parables, or allegorically. On various occasions He spoke prophetically. As His role as a Prophet, he prophecied the literal destruction of Jerusalem. Remember, He was not acting as a King, but as a Prophet. In that very chapter, He acknowledge His Kingship, but refused to act upon it, because it was not His mission to fulfill such a role – YET! His mission was to be a sacrifice lamb, as testified by John the Baptist. I’m just a little curious or baffeled about your contention with what is planely written in the Gospels? Its either the “Gosple,”or its the “Gosple of Ralph.”Make you pick. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you remind me of Judas – trying to fit Jesus into your particular mold you created for Him. I also notice that you have a sense of pride in your embracing of the Gnostics. The Gnostics cannot be counted on as reliable, because they were written at least in the second-century milieu.

                    • You must admit to your selective use of the scriptures. You discard portions that happen to not suite your taste, and emphasize other portions to build on your own narative – poor exegetics. Imagine for a moment if you were right about Jesus. That he was just an ordinary person, with big ambitions as a political leader, wounded on a cross but survived it. Beaten up and defeated by the romans, and with a wounded pride, went into obscurity. Do you not expect the enemies of christianity to produce the evidence and champion it to the highest heaven? You’re beating a dead horse. For it didn’t work when the jews claim that His body was stolen, or all the other ridiculous assertions made by detractors. The enemies of the cross had 2000 years to sharpen their skills and figure up a way to defeat Christianity, but they always seem to come up short. So will you, Ralf, my friend, but good luck.

    • What will be even odder is to have an historic epic movie about the Vikings, Thor, Zeus etc. with Denzel Washington as Thor or Zeus and Beyonce as their Queen!!! Go figure. How would you like a movie like that? While we are it, let’s cast Laurence Fishburne as King Arthur in the next epic and Samuel L Jackson as Lancelot!!!!

      • If you would care to read the thread, instead of ranting, you will discover that it has been scientifically proved that Pharaoh Ramasses II was a pale-skinned redhead. While we know that the Israelites (the Jews) are likewise a pale-skinned people.

        So the depictions in this film are correct.

  11. It is pretty disgusting that in 2015, the world still believe that Black History began in slavery. I will now give all who read this 100% proof that the Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh’s were Black Nubian Africans. First Sheldon Peck an Orthodontist and Det. Sgt. Frank Domingo (NY Forensic Artist) recreated the Sphinx’s face and found it to be Nubian see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpuGTr0p9dM. Also Google picture these – Ahmenenhet III (Dread-Locks!!!), King Sahure, King, Djedkare VIII, Queen Kemset. Also try searching Medu Neter. (Ever heard that the truth is written in stone?) In addition to this we have eminent scholars and professors who also prove my point, Cheik Anta Diop, Ivan van Sertima, Robert Bauval, Robert Schock… I could go on and on, but anyone who believes there own eyes will see for themselves.