The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

[Goat]

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source.

Carrier is a scholarly source (B.A. from UC Berkeley in History and Classical Civilizations, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University).

Here is his Curriculum Vitae

Yet do you remember that movie that was put forth by astounding,which you and I agreed on? Carrier fully endorsed and assisted with that movie. His commentary is available about it. So obviously, dispite the fact that he is known (an in my opinion as well) as a scholar, he can't be trusted impicidly can he?

All I'm asking for is someone else, someone from an archeological review, or reviews journal, who also acknowledges this man was ruling this particular area during that time.

Am I asking to much?

I have a challenge for you.

I would like you to find one of the following

1) A peer reviewed article on the Vardamen coin from an archelogical journal (either pro or con).

2) A published article by Vardamen about the coin.

3) A photograph of the coin showing the microlettering.

4) A published article about microlettering from Vardamen
on any of the places he claimed to have found microlettering.

[Lotan]

Yet do you remember that movie that was put forth by astounding,which you and I agreed on? Carrier fully endorsed and assisted with that movie.

No. He didn't.

The movie that we both agreed was erroneous was called "The Truth About The Jesus Myth" and is available at http://www.youtube.com

The movie that Carrier endorsed is called "The God Who Wasn't There". I have not seen it.

Here is the thread that you are referring to if you want to check for yourself.

So obviously, dispite the fact that he is known (an in my opinion as well) as a scholar, he can't be trusted impicidly can he?

Why? Because people mistakenly represent him? Looks like it's you who "can't be trusted impicidly".

All I'm asking for is someone else, someone from an archeological review, or reviews journal, who also acknowledges this man was ruling this particular area during that time.

Is your search engine broken? Try this.

[stevencarrwork]

The earliest Christian belief was not that the corpse of Jesus rose and walked around on the earth (something which is not in any of the early creeds in Romans or Philippians or 1 Corinthians 15)

There are some undoubted facts which can be gleaned from Paul's letters.

People converted to Jesus-worship in Thessalonia and Corinth, believed in the resurrection of Jesus, but still thought the dead were lost, and scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

How can that be, if they had had the example of Jesus corpse rising in their minds?

Perhaps a rough analogy might help.

If Zeus turned into a swan and then the swan was killed, and Zeus appeared in a vision telling people that he had been a swan, but had now reverted to God-form, then many people might convert to Zeus-worship.

However, they would still scoff at the idea that any ordinary swan could turn into a god after death.

Paul solves this problem by explaining that Jesus was a type - the last Adam - so they too would have the same sort of resurrection that Jesus had, namely becoming a life-giving spirit (as opposed to their current 'body of death' to use Paul's phrase from Romans)

It is also interesting to see how other Jews answered the question that the Christian converts threw at Paul - how can a rotting corpse come back to life?

Section Sanhedrin 90b of he Talmud discusses the question that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15 - how can dust come back to life?

Paul denies that it will. He claims resurrected beings will not be made of the dust of the earth. In 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.'

Paul denies that dust will come back to life. If there is a resurrected body, he writes, it will not be made from dust, it will be made from heavenly material.

There were Jews who did believe that dust comes back to life again. Find out how Sanhedrin 90b handles the question, and see how utterly alien it is to Paul's way of writing in 1 Corinthians 15.

[AB]

I am looking at it now. It doesnt have a part: "when quintariss first became governor of Syria". Sorry.

No problem. It happens to everyone.

Maybe you misunderstood. I was telling you that your were in error stating that I was reading Luke incorrectly. Seems like your grasping at straws here a little.

[achilles12604]

this.[/quote]


Hey thanks.

You do realize that from 3-1 BC there was a man named Quirinius ruling right? According to your source. . .

Now when we look at Luke I do not see why this would be a problem. There is no set timeframe given for the Birth of Jesus other than

Quirinius was Governer and Ceaser Augustus was ruling. Augustus was allowed to call a census from 23BC after the second settlement.

I see no contradiction and thanks for the evidence which supports it.

[Lotan]

Hey thanks.

(...hee, hee, hee...)

You're most welcome.

You do realize that from 3-1 BC there was a man named Quirinius ruling right?

No, I didn't know that. Neither did anyone else!
I know that website says so, but there's one little detail that must be considered - there's no evidence for it!

You just can't believe everything you read!

According to your source. . .

It's not my source, it's yours! I wouldn't make any claims based on it, unless I checked it against at least a couple of other sources.

Let's see...
First you assured us that "There were two Quirinuses."
You based this on "Dr. John McRay comments on money with Quirinius inscription on it from 4BC."
(I'm dying to know, did you get this from Strobel? )
McRay's 'evidence' was the opinion of an "eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman", a loon.
Faced with this you offered "I will look into it more deeply."
When I directed you to Carrier's site, you asked "Ok how about giving me a scholarly source." which is really funny considering the source you used in the first place. Then you came out with this gem...

Yet do you remember that movie that was put forth by astounding,which you and I agreed on? Carrier fully endorsed and assisted with that movie. His commentary is available about it. So obviously, dispite the fact that he is known (an in my opinion as well) as a scholar, he can't be trusted impicidly can he?

WRONG MOVIE!
And now you can't even acknowledge your mistake, and you continue to ignore Carrier's site!

If you look at the table on the Katapi.org site, you'll notice that it was created "by W O E Oesterley MA DD(Camb) first published - Oxford University Press 1932". Specific to Quirinius, Oesterley cites Emil Schurer, German Protestant theologian, who wrote "A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ" (1886-1890). So, we have two theologians, but no evidence for an earlier term for Quirinius. You would have known that if you had truly looked into it "more deeply".

Now when we look at Luke I do not see why this would be a problem. There is no set timeframe given for the Birth of Jesus other than

Quirinius was Governer and Ceaser Augustus was ruling. Augustus was allowed to call a census from 23BC after the second settlement.

You're right! There's absolutely nothing else! No "set timeframe" at all!

Except the book of 'Matthew'...

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Matthew 2:1-3

I see no contradiction and thanks for the evidence which supports it.

The contradiction is obvious. Even if you invent an earlier term for Quirinius, it's still there. Herod died in 4 BC.

Here's the link to Carrier's article, "The Date of the Nativity in Luke"...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... inius.html

[Goat]

I am looking at it now. It doesnt have a part: "when quintariss first became governor of Syria". Sorry.

No problem. It happens to everyone.

Maybe you misunderstood. I was telling you that your were in error stating that I was reading Luke incorrectly. Seems like your grasping at straws here a little.

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'

That means, at the beginning of the time he was govenor.

This was in 6 C.E.

This is an historical event that is recorded in Jospehus.

When you first were born, you were an infant. Does that mean you were born more than once? Does that refer to the timeframe when you became a teenager? No, the term
'when you first were born'. refers to the timeframe when your mother gave birth to you.

That is the same as in the Greek that Luke used. We can pin that down to 6 C.E. becaues we have the event of the census recorded in Josephus, because Quinarsis conducting a cencus caused a revolt by a Zealot. We do not have any evidence of Quinarsis conducting a different cencus.

[achilles12604]

Ok. I have now read through Carriers entire document.

Everything he said is possible, with the exception that Quirinius could not have been assisting another governer in conducting the census.

However, I have an idea which I had never heard of before. Thanks to the wonders of debate, I have now been enlightened to this possibility.



What if we are all looking at the wrong person? So far all the debate has been around Quirinius. This is because Josephus was trusted when he said Herod died after an eclipse. I have no problem with this. But my question for the entire forum is Which Eclipse?

There were several ecplises during that time. The eclipse refered to by most people was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 BC, but there were two other eclipses of the moon on July 17, 1 BC and on January 9-10, 1 AD.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html

Since Josephus only refers to one eclipse we are not sure of which one.

ALSO ---


Josephus dating is not necessarily accurate. Roman historian Appianos calculated Herod's kingship as ending around 1 or 2 BC. But why would these two historians differ?

The answer could be that Josephus counted by a method known as consular dating or dating things against when particular people became consuls. This leaves a margin for error of one year just by his system of dating.

There is more evidence that Josephus was off by an entire year.

Josephus says that Herod took the thrown in 40 BC. Also, In his own writings he said that Herod took the captured jerusalem in 37BC and that this was 27 years after the capture of pompey. But Pompey was captured in 63 BC. This shows that even among his own writings Josephus is off by no less than a year.

Appianos on the other hand has a different year for Herod's kingship. In [[Appianos] - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD] he placed the event in 39 BC. Again we have a discrepancy of one year.

Another problem with Josephus dating is the amount of events that had to occur between the eclipse and Passover. However, if Appianos was correct, then there were a couple months for all these events to occur which fits much more easily.

Lets look again at the dating presented by these two historians.

Looking at Herods death, Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2])

But this would mean that Harod died in 2 BC or 1 BC whereas Appianos dating would place it at 1 BC or 1 AD.


Interestingly, if Herod died somewhere around 1BCE or especially 1AD, this allows all the facts to fall into place.

Quin was appointed to be an adviser to Caius Caesar in the government of Armenia (Caius was counsul and was sent to Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. and later died in 4 A.D.) Why else would he advisor of Syria unless he had a lot of knowledge about the area which we are sure of because he had spent the last 6-8 years there as a commanding general for Rome. Tacitus Annals- Book Two

This would explain how he could order the census and as your Mr. Carrier points out, there was no consistency in how they were carried out except in Egypt (due to taxation of 14 year old boys.) You see, I do learn from atheists!

By simply re-assessing the date of Herod's death, EVERYTHING falls into place fairly well. Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.



Concluding, Josephus was off by at least one full year even by his own calculations. His calculations (assuming Herod was 70 years old) would put Herods Death within 2 BC (47BC-45 years) which would really mean around 1BC, not 4BC.

Roman historian Appianos's dating is much sounder if you take Josephus dating into account (ie dates of events off by 1 year with Josephus but not with Appianos), and his dating would put Herod's death once again at 1 BCish.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 100797.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/1997/97nd_7.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... html#Herod
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Dat ... id/1292322
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://www.biblehistory.net/volume2/Quirinius.htm

[Goat]

Ok. I have now read through Carriers entire document.

Everything he said is possible, with the exception that Quirinius could not have been assisting another governer in conducting the census.

However, I have an idea which I had never heard of before. Thanks to the wonders of debate, I have now been enlightened to this possibility.



What if we are all looking at the wrong person? So far all the debate has been around Quirinius. This is because Josephus was trusted when he said Herod died after an eclipse. I have no problem with this. But my question for the entire forum is Which Eclipse?

There were several ecplises during that time. The eclipse refered to by most people was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 BC, but there were two other eclipses of the moon on July 17, 1 BC and on January 9-10, 1 AD.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html

Since Josephus only refers to one eclipse we are not sure of which one.

ALSO ---


Josephus dating is not necessarily accurate. Roman historian Appianos calculated Herod's kingship as ending around 1 or 2 BC. But why would these two historians differ?

The answer could be that Josephus counted by a method known as consular dating or dating things against when particular people became consuls. This leaves a margin for error of one year just by his system of dating.

There is more evidence that Josephus was off by an entire year.

Josephus says that Herod took the thrown in 40 BC. Also, In his own writings he said that Herod took the captured jerusalem in 37BC and that this was 27 years after the capture of pompey. But Pompey was captured in 63 BC. This shows that even among his own writings Josephus is off by no less than a year.

Appianos on the other hand has a different year for Herod's kingship. In [[Appianos] - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD] he placed the event in 39 BC. Again we have a discrepancy of one year.

Another problem with Josephus dating is the amount of events that had to occur between the eclipse and Passover. However, if Appianos was correct, then there were a couple months for all these events to occur which fits much more easily.

Lets look again at the dating presented by these two historians.

Looking at Herods death, Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2])

But this would mean that Harod died in 2 BC or 1 BC whereas Appianos dating would place it at 1 BC or 1 AD.


Interestingly, if Herod died somewhere around 1BCE or especially 1AD, this allows all the facts to fall into place.

Quin was appointed to be an adviser to Caius Caesar in the government of Armenia (Caius was counsul and was sent to Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. and later died in 4 A.D.) Why else would he advisor of Syria unless he had a lot of knowledge about the area which we are sure of because he had spent the last 6-8 years there as a commanding general for Rome. Tacitus Annals- Book Two

This would explain how he could order the census and as your Mr. Carrier points out, there was no consistency in how they were carried out except in Egypt (due to taxation of 14 year old boys.) You see, I do learn from atheists!

By simply re-assessing the date of Herod's death, EVERYTHING falls into place fairly well. Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.



Concluding, Josephus was off by at least one full year even by his own calculations. His calculations (assuming Herod was 70 years old) would put Herods Death within 2 BC (47BC-45 years) which would really mean around 1BC, not 4BC.

Roman historian Appianos's dating is much sounder if you take Josephus dating into account (ie dates of events off by 1 year with Josephus but not with Appianos), and his dating would put Herod's death once again at 1 BCish.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 100797.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/1997/97nd_7.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... html#Herod
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Dat ... id/1292322
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://www.biblehistory.net/volume2/Quirinius.htm

The date for Herod the King's death still is irrelavent, even if Josphus was off by a year or so. Quinsrisis still didn't take over the providence of Syria and control over Judah until the exile of Herod Archelaus. Herod Archelaus was Herod the Kings son, and ruled Judah for a number of years before being replaced for incompetency.

Both the Jews and the Samaratins directly asked Rome to replace HerodArchelaus.

While it might be possible for the dates in Josphus to be off (he was a careless historian in many respects), the sequence of events that took place is
1) Herod the King died.
2) HIs kingdom was split between his 3 sons, with Herod Archelaus taking over the southern kingdom (judah), given in Josphus at 4 bce.
3) Herod Archelaus was so bad as a ruler, that the Jews and Samaratians appealed to Rome, and had him replaced. This put Judah under the direct control of Rome in the providence of Syria , given in Josphus as happening in 6 C.E. It is at this point that a cencus was reported to be ordered (again Josephus is the origin of this). The zealot Judas the Galilean organized a revolt against Rome due to this cencus.

Because of those sequneces, we can't be looking at the wrong man.

[achilles12604]

Ok. I have now read through Carriers entire document.

Everything he said is possible, with the exception that Quirinius could not have been assisting another governer in conducting the census.

However, I have an idea which I had never heard of before. Thanks to the wonders of debate, I have now been enlightened to this possibility.



What if we are all looking at the wrong person? So far all the debate has been around Quirinius. This is because Josephus was trusted when he said Herod died after an eclipse. I have no problem with this. But my question for the entire forum is Which Eclipse?

There were several ecplises during that time. The eclipse refered to by most people was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 BC, but there were two other eclipses of the moon on July 17, 1 BC and on January 9-10, 1 AD.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html

Since Josephus only refers to one eclipse we are not sure of which one.

ALSO ---


Josephus dating is not necessarily accurate. Roman historian Appianos calculated Herod's kingship as ending around 1 or 2 BC. But why would these two historians differ?

The answer could be that Josephus counted by a method known as consular dating or dating things against when particular people became consuls. This leaves a margin for error of one year just by his system of dating.

There is more evidence that Josephus was off by an entire year.

Josephus says that Herod took the thrown in 40 BC. Also, In his own writings he said that Herod took the captured jerusalem in 37BC and that this was 27 years after the capture of pompey. But Pompey was captured in 63 BC. This shows that even among his own writings Josephus is off by no less than a year.

Appianos on the other hand has a different year for Herod's kingship. In [[Appianos] - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD] he placed the event in 39 BC. Again we have a discrepancy of one year.

Another problem with Josephus dating is the amount of events that had to occur between the eclipse and Passover. However, if Appianos was correct, then there were a couple months for all these events to occur which fits much more easily.

Lets look again at the dating presented by these two historians.

Looking at Herods death, Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2])

But this would mean that Harod died in 2 BC or 1 BC whereas Appianos dating would place it at 1 BC or 1 AD.


Interestingly, if Herod died somewhere around 1BCE or especially 1AD, this allows all the facts to fall into place.

Quin was appointed to be an adviser to Caius Caesar in the government of Armenia (Caius was counsul and was sent to Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. and later died in 4 A.D.) Why else would he advisor of Syria unless he had a lot of knowledge about the area which we are sure of because he had spent the last 6-8 years there as a commanding general for Rome. Tacitus Annals- Book Two

This would explain how he could order the census and as your Mr. Carrier points out, there was no consistency in how they were carried out except in Egypt (due to taxation of 14 year old boys.) You see, I do learn from atheists!

By simply re-assessing the date of Herod's death, EVERYTHING falls into place fairly well. Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.



Concluding, Josephus was off by at least one full year even by his own calculations. His calculations (assuming Herod was 70 years old) would put Herods Death within 2 BC (47BC-45 years) which would really mean around 1BC, not 4BC.

Roman historian Appianos's dating is much sounder if you take Josephus dating into account (ie dates of events off by 1 year with Josephus but not with Appianos), and his dating would put Herod's death once again at 1 BCish.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 100797.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/1997/97nd_7.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... html#Herod
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Dat ... id/1292322
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/L ... -0000.html
http://www.biblehistory.net/volume2/Quirinius.htm

The date for Herod the King's death still is irrelavent, even if Josphus was off by a year or so. Quinsrisis still didn't take over the providence of Syria and control over Judah until the exile of Herod Archelaus. Herod Archelaus was Herod the Kings son, and ruled Judah for a number of years before being replaced for incompetency.

Both the Jews and the Samaratins directly asked Rome to replace HerodArchelaus.

While it might be possible for the dates in Josphus to be off (he was a careless historian in many respects), the sequence of events that took place is
1) Herod the King died.
2) HIs kingdom was split between his 3 sons, with Herod Archelaus taking over the southern kingdom (judah), given in Josphus at 4 bce.
3) Herod Archelaus was so bad as a ruler, that the Jews and Samaratians appealed to Rome, and had him replaced. This put Judah under the direct control of Rome in the providence of Syria , given in Josphus as happening in 6 C.E. It is at this point that a cencus was reported to be ordered (again Josephus is the origin of this). The zealot Judas the Galilean organized a revolt against Rome due to this cencus.

Because of those sequneces, we can't be looking at the wrong man.

You missed the last part of my writings. Let me quote myself . . .

Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.

Actually I am even wrong to a degree. The ancient Greek litterally says,

"This registraition first occured during the governing syria Cyrenius."

This is the litteral translation from Green interliner bible with Strongs.

As you can see, it says he was governing, not the governer. While this could be (don't get ahead of me) splitting hairs, it could also be very important. An analogy :

While Bush (Gov) is in fact president of the US, it is Donald Rumsfield (quin) who makes most of the decisions about Iraq. Quite often when orders come down, they have Rumsfield's name, not the presidents. Rumsfield is acting as a deputy to the president and so he retains the President's power to command the forces on the field. But the media usually claims Bush made all the decisions which would be impossible and is also not true since Rumsfield's decisions are not always agreed with by the Pres and are therefore altered.

The troops point to Rumsfield in thier chain of command before the President (on the way up). So even though the President is in fact commander in chief, he does not necessarily make all the decisions personally. In fact he makes very few, but is given credit for most of them.

Now what if Bush was brand spanking new and had almost zero experience in Judah but Rumsfield had been there for over a decade?. Who would be put in charge of a census? He isn't the ruler, but he can do this especailly if asked to by the Pres.

So it does matter. Especially since I am not stuck on the word "governing".