So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
You have accepted that he might have been I assume?
I did not react "badly," I simply questioned your unsubstantiated comment, so redolent of your usual approach to religion.
I will accept anything which is properly substantiated.
To repeat myself, on two counts: if there is proper evidence, I accept that; no problem. And, again, it does not matter. Why do you think it should?