Would the Romans have allowed the body of Jesus to be given to Joseph of Arimathea for Proper burial?

[Meerkat2]

Originally Posted by Michael Way

Why are you referring to the Romans as Canaanites? The Canaanites were a Semitic people from the land of Canaan. Romans were Gentiles and multi-cultural.

And why did you misquote me? I did not insert the word Canaanites into my question. Don't alter what another person has said.

The Romans generally accepted the religions of other people as long as they did not conflict with Rome's interests.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

. There is no need to be so pedantic, Michael. We would not consider it unusual to refer to an American citizen in Ohio as an Ohio American, so what is so unusual about considering a citizen of the Roman Empire in Canaan that way?

Originally Posted by Michael Way

The Romans were not Canaanites. Some people care about accuracy.

I agree with mike mystic

The Romans were not canaanites and if people are going to discuss things there is a need to be specific and accurate about the source of the material and what it means in its own context, and on the same page/book so to speak

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Meerkat2

I agree with mike mystic

The Romans were not canaanites and if people are going to discuss things there is a need to be specific and accurate about the source of the material and what it means in its own context, and on the same page/book so to speak

Thanks, Meerkat. And you're absolutely right about the need for people to be on the same page when discussing things as well as the need for accuracy. Good communication can't exist without it.

[Meerkat2]

Originally Posted by Michael Way

Thanks, Meerkat. And you're absolutely right about the need for people to be on the same page when discussing things as well as the need for accuracy. Good communication can't exist without it.

And the Scriptures have their own specific boundaries, and also refer to specific boundaries

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Meerkat2

And the Scriptures have their own specific boundaries, and also refer to specific boundaries

Yes. The Bible has a variety of genres, each of which must be properly understood if what the biblical writers wrote is to be understood.

[tripplelogicality]

The Italians themselves whose families are of the generations historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome - are indeed a genetic mixture clash of ………

…. a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian / and European bloodline.

My family bloodline is this very mixture, my family and I have done the DNA test.

As Italians - we are “ Canaanite, Persian Arabian / Europeans. “
It is the same with the Greeks -

whom also, - Greeks whose families are of the generations historically native and indigenous to Greece, their bloodline DNA is also a mixture of a Canaanite, Persian , Arabian / European bloodline.

This is the genetic makeup of our DNA - an indigenous mixture of all the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. specifically north, between Canaan and Europe

Canaanite , Persian, Arabian Europeans.

The Ancient NATIVE Romans - native to the land were Mediterranean Latins.

And this is also what a Latin is - or a Latino..

The Latinos in Mexico and South America - these also, are mixture of

Canaanite, Persian, Arabian Europeans - “ mostly from the Muslim invaded Spain “ of course Latinos and Mexicans still have their native South American bloodline.

But when you are looking - take a look at a native Italian, Roman, or a Greek person or a Latino or Mexican individual ……

All Latino people
You are look, you are looking at a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European.


This is the common bond, the bloodline bond - the hub / sphere - the common shared blood bond of all of our Latino, Mexican, Italian and even Greeks.

The Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European bloodline -

These families whom are of the generations historically native and indigenous to the land comprise of various Mediterranean Middle Eastern ethnicity, mixed with variations of European.

My family, as Italians - we are not indo-European, we are our own Mediterranean , Middle Eastern bloodline -
a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European - racial bloodline.

It is true that the Italians in Rome would incorporate mercenary soldiers or hired guns as soldiers working in the Italian Military as freelance soldiers from the north in Europe –

pure-blooded Europeans - from the north who had blue eyes and blond and red hair and very white completions.
But these European mercenary soldiers or hired guns working in the Italian Military were not from generations historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome.

A true Roman - whose family was historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome was a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European genetic mixture.

The main point I should have made more clear, is that the NATIVE Romans themselves - were the indigenous and native Italians to the land of Italy / Rome

The Canaanite, Persian, Arabian bloodline bond of all native Romans and Italians.

I know we are used to looking at Hollywood movies that have blue eyes and blond-haired Swedish and German actors playing the role of a Roman soldier but - if we look at the historical DNA reality of all the Italian people - all Latinos. - I am not referring to the incorporated mercenary soldiers or hired guns as hired soldiers working in the Italian Military as freelance soldiers from the north in Europe.

Just take a look - next time you have time to go online and look at photos of Latinos or Italians or Greeks - native to their environment.

You will see, you are looking at a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European.

All of my sisters and my Grandfather, much of my family - you would see it in them.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by tripplelogicality

The Italians themselves whose families are of the generations historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome - are indeed a genetic mixture clash of ………

…. a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian / and European bloodline.

My family bloodline is this very mixture, my family and I have done the DNA test.

As Italians - we are “ Canaanite, Persian Arabian / Europeans. “
It is the same with the Greeks -

whom also, - Greeks whose families are of the generations historically native and indigenous to Greece, their bloodline DNA is also a mixture of a Canaanite, Persian , Arabian / European bloodline.

This is the genetic makeup of our DNA - an indigenous mixture of all the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. specifically north, between Canaan and Europe

Canaanite , Persian, Arabian Europeans.

The Ancient NATIVE Romans - native to the land were Mediterranean Latins.

And this is also what a Latin is - or a Latino..

The Latinos in Mexico and South America - these also, are mixture of

Canaanite, Persian, Arabian Europeans - “ mostly from the Muslim invaded Spain “ of course Latinos and Mexicans still have their native South American bloodline.

But when you are looking - take a look at a native Italian, Roman, or a Greek person or a Latino or Mexican individual ……

All Latino people
You are look, you are looking at a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European.


This is the common bond, the bloodline bond - the hub / sphere - the common shared blood bond of all of our Latino, Mexican, Italian and even Greeks.

The Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European bloodline -

These families whom are of the generations historically native and indigenous to the land comprise of various Mediterranean Middle Eastern ethnicity, mixed with variations of European.

My family, as Italians - we are not indo-European, we are our own Mediterranean , Middle Eastern bloodline -
a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European - racial bloodline.

It is true that the Italians in Rome would incorporate mercenary soldiers or hired guns as soldiers working in the Italian Military as freelance soldiers from the north in Europe –

pure-blooded Europeans - from the north who had blue eyes and blond and red hair and very white completions.
But these European mercenary soldiers or hired guns working in the Italian Military were not from generations historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome.

A true Roman - whose family was historically indigenous and native to the land of Italy / Rome was a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European genetic mixture.

The main point I should have made more clear, is that the NATIVE Romans themselves - were the indigenous and native Italians to the land of Italy / Rome

The Canaanite, Persian, Arabian bloodline bond of all native Romans and Italians.

I know we are used to looking at Hollywood movies that have blue eyes and blond-haired Swedish and German actors playing the role of a Roman soldier but - if we look at the historical DNA reality of all the Italian people - all Latinos. - I am not referring to the incorporated mercenary soldiers or hired guns as hired soldiers working in the Italian Military as freelance soldiers from the north in Europe.

Just take a look - next time you have time to go online and look at photos of Latinos or Italians or Greeks - native to their environment.

You will see, you are looking at a Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European.

All of my sisters and my Grandfather, much of my family - you would see it in them.

So why single out 'Canaanites,' why specifically call them Roman Canaanites when by your own admission the Romans were a genetic mix?

[tripplelogicality]

Please remember.....


Ham’s descendants settled in Southern Arabia, Southern Egypt, East shore of the Mediterranean, and the North coast of Africa. The territory in which Ham's son Canaan and his descendants settled became known as Canaan.

The Canaanites and their surrounding tribes and relations are the earliest known racial identity from whom were enemies of ISRAEL.

Singling out and exclusively choosing the Canaanite ethnicity - the sons of Canaan, is the most accurate choice to directly sescribe the relationship between the Jews and the Italian Canaanites - because of the fact that - these were the only enemies of the Hebrew race.

The Jews were not direct enemies with the Europeans during the time of Jesus.

They were historical enemies of the Canaanites and all of the branches of the original Canaanite from Canaan.

The Italians / Romans, as Canaanites have always been at war with Israel - as being partly mixed with variations of European descent, Italy was not waging war against the Jews at the time of Jesus for the sake of Europe.

They , Italy - was waging war against Israel in order to seize control of Canaan - the Jews took Canaan away from the Canaanites and the Italian Canaanites wanted it back under their control.

When the Italian Canaanites destroyed the Hebrew temple and drove the Jews out of Israel they immediately renamed their Canaanite territory - calling it "Palestinian Territory "

The Popes today often refer to Israel as "Palestinian Land “ or Palestine

The word "Palestinian" derives from the Philistines. The Popes do this because they do not believe that the Jews have a promise from God to give them Israel as an inheritance

The Popes also do this in order to appease and win the hearts of the Italians who worship him and adore him as a great leader. The Italians have always wanted a leader who runs his big mouth making proclamations about Israel being referred to as a land called Palestine - this is their historical pride as Canaanites.

As of Italian heritage, myself , and as an American I accept these facts and I have no longing desire to visit the City of Rome and no desire to pretend and cover up my TRUE identity and my racial identity.

I have no ties and absolutely no loyalty to the Italian majority, I am a minority among my Italian community

We are of the root of the Canaanite orbit and hub of all that is Latin. I just thank God that I am an American, free to be who I am and not what is expected from the world community.

Why would I expect the world to pretend and lie and work to deceiving the world who my ancestors truly are ?

Is this an unwritten mandatory law that deserves punishment and consequences for disobence in acknowledgment ?

[hd4me]

Originally Posted by Michael Way

The short answer is yes. Skeptics of the resurrection of Jesus will sometimes say that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea asking for the body of Jesus so that he could place the body in his own new tomb (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23: 50-53; John 19:38-40) could not be historical because the Romans left the bodies of those who had been crucified on the cross to rot and be eaten by birds, or else disposed of the bodies by throwing them into a mass grave.

In certain, or perhaps in many cases this was true. But it is also true that in many cases the Romans respected the burial practices of the Jews and gave the bodies of those who had been executed to family members upon request. This is verified in The Digest or Pandects of Justinian / Digest of Roman Law, a fifty book digest which was compiled between AD 529-534 concerning Roman Law up to that time. In book 48, section 24 it reads,

HE ENACTMENTS OF JUSTINIAN.

THE DIGEST OR PANDECTS.


~ Book XLVIII (48)


Tit. 24. Concerning the corpses of persons who are punished.


1. Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book IX.

The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book on his life, said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason. Even the bodies of those who have been sentenced to be burned can be claimed, in order that their bones and ashes, after having been collected, may be buried.

https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-al...Scott.htm#XXIV

This law was in effect in Jesus' time as seen by the reference to the 'Divine Augustus' (63 BC - 14 AD)

As is stated, permission wasn't always given, especially where a person had been convicted of high treason which was punishable by crucifixion. Yet we know from the historian Josephus that there were instances in which even the bodies of those who had been crucified could be given to relatives upon request.

In Wars of the Jews, book IV, chapter 5, section 2, when writing of the cruelty of the Idumeans and of the zealots, Josephus makes the following comment.

''But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

I blue bolded the part that I want to call attention to. The Jews were able to take even the bodies of those who had been crucified and give them a proper burial.

The Romans had every incentive to give Jesus' body to Joseph of Arimathea for the simple reason of keeping the peace. This was in Jerusalem during Passover. The city was swollen beyond the normal population with people who had come for Passover and conditions could get very volatile very quickly. If Jesus' body had not been allowed to be taken down and buried before sunset this would have violated Jewish law and caused great offense which could easily have resulted in rioting. The Romans would have wanted to avoid that. The easiest way to keep the peace was to let Jesus' body be taken down and buried. And so Joseph of Arimathea's request to have the body of Jesus, and be given it, is quite plausible.

[tripplelogicality]

You can even tell the similarity between Middle Eastern music and the music of the Latino musicians South of the border.

next opportunity you have compare the music of the Middle East to most of the mainstream music that you hear in Mexico.

The style is very similar.