Some archeologists find an ancient family tomb containing some bone boxes, one with a name on it that could be translated 'jesus son of joseph.'
years later a famous movie man 'discovers' some dna has been found in the box and other boxes have names implying jesus had children. the movie man decides it proves there was a historical jesus and gets a lot of publicity.
so a church official says if you're a good xian you can't believe it because you have to believe jesus was resurrected so his bones never got buried.
does that mean a good xian has to believe there was no historical jesus?
well, actually, there's nothing conclusive either way, so why all the fuss? are folk so addled by the complexities of life that they grasp at whatever simple straws they get offered that give them the least bit of hope that what they learned as children might rest on some firm footing?
ya know, i wonder why believing in some highly improbable event trumps following fundamental principles in defining someone as a follower of a religion.
like, say a soldier or a terrorist kills a bunch of innocent folk. if he believes in the resurrection, he's a xian. if he believes an angel spoke to the prophet, he's a muslim. the fact that he breaks a basic moral teaching of both faiths has nothing to do with it.
i guess the key words there are 'fact' and 'faith.' if you have faith you ignore fact. if you have facts you need no faith. never the twain shall meet.
