This was a stunner for me, but its turns out MLK did not believe in the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth or and most importantly of all the Resurrection itself.

In other words he was an apostate "preacher" who totally rejected the gospel of Christ. He literally was not even a believer. He had a totally quack liberal theology that rejected the most central aspects of the Gospel and the Bible completely.

https://g3min.org/whats-the-truth-about-...r-king-jr/

I've always wondered how MLK was supposedly this genuine Christian yet so many of his inner circle turned out to be charlatans. Now I understand why.

From Pastor Virgil Walker's blog:


In his paper on the Humanity and Divinity of Jesus, King wrote,

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that Christ … is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental… So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

The core of the Christian faith is the divinity of Christ. One falls outside of orthodoxy if one disagrees with this fundamental doctrine. Since King denied the deity of Christ, it makes sense that he would also deny the resurrection. 

As it pertains to the bodily resurrection of Christ, King writes,

This doctrine (the resurrection), upon which the Easter faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view, this doctrine raises many questions. In fact, the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.

King did not believe in the deity of Christ or that he rose from the dead. In addition, he also rejected the doctrines of virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, and the existence of a literal hell.

One has to wonder how King viewed the admonition of the apostle Paul when, in writing to the church at Corinth, Paul writes, 

Now, if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain .
1 Corinthians 15:12–14


What is clear is that Martin Luther King Jr., based solely on his rejection of Christ’s deity, was not a Christian. The question that one should ask is, “What did King believe?” Answering the previous question requires examining King’s ideological framework for advancing civil rights. 

He was also pretty famous for extra-marital affairs.

He was also a communist and philanderer

That is rather disconcerting to learn of that. I never knew that at all.

However, would I take MLK over the idiotic woke social justice warriors of modern day??? Absolutely. At least his peaceful protests were in fact peaceful protests.

Likewise, Trump's personal indiscretions didn't bother me because he was steering the country/world in the right direction. But yeah, he wasn't touting himself as a "reverend" either.

Yeah I don't know why we celebrate MLK as this awesome guy. He had some nice speeches but he wasn't a great person. He was a hypocrite and an adulterer.

(01-19-2023 09:22 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Yeah I don't know why we celebrate MLK as this awesome guy. He had some nice speeches but he wasn't a great person. He was a hypocrite and an adulterer.

That doesn't stop people from celebrating d-bags

Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

His shortcomings don't bother me at all, he's still a significant historical figure. Glass houses and all that.

(01-19-2023 09:34 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

His shortcomings don't bother me at all, he's still a significant historical figure. Glass houses and all that.

And he wasn't murdered for his human frailties. His life was taken for what he stood up for.

Count me as among those who will continue to view him as an American hero.

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

My thoughts also.

(01-19-2023 09:50 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

My thoughts also.

While that may be true, he is most celebrated for his work to bring equality among different races. For that I give him all the kudos in the world. How we ever allowed separate schools, drinking fountains, restrooms, etc., and no ability to vote because of skin color or gender is beyond me.

The writings at issue were submitted by King to his professors when he was 21 years old. To me, it’s entirely possible that the thoughts expressed really were those of a young man still sorting out his beliefs about life, and maybe his academic words at age 21 did not reflect his personal beliefs at age 39.

Another question is whether they really were *his* academic words, in the first place. It’s been known for over 30 years — though rarely acknowledged in media — that MLK plagiarized many of the papers he “wrote” during his college years. There is some evidence, as well (though not conclusive), that many of the professors who reviewed his work in that time were well aware of this, but looked the other way because they knew/hoped that he was destined for Great Things and didn’t want to get in the way of that.

(01-19-2023 09:47 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 09:34 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

His shortcomings don't bother me at all, he's still a significant historical figure. Glass houses and all that.

And he wasn't murdered for his human frailties. His life was taken for what he stood up for.

Count me as among those who will continue to view him as an American hero.

There are those that say the same folks that killed Kennedy killed MLK. Not admitting to believing that cause you know:

(01-19-2023 10:05 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The writings at issue were submitted by King to his professors when he was 21 years old. To me, it’s entirely possible that the thoughts expressed really were those of a young man still sorting out his beliefs about life, and maybe his academic words at age 21 did not reflect his personal beliefs at age 39.

Another question is whether they really were *his* academic words, in the first place. It’s been known for over 30 years — though rarely acknowledged in media — that MLK plagiarized many of the papers he “wrote” during his college years. There is some evidence, as well (though not conclusive), that many of the professors who reviewed his work in that time were well aware of this, but looked the other way because they knew/hoped that he was destined for Great Things and didn’t want to get in the way of that.

Except for the fact that there is zero evidence in his entire life that these were not his beliefs or that his beliefs ever changed.

I don't think anyone is reading the article because it was written by a black pastor who has studied Kings words and works his entire life. And he is a very genuine Christian and Bible teacher who was very apprehensive about putting this out. This is part 2 of 4.

He also made the case that Kings ideology was the genesis of the modern ideologies of the LGBTQ+ and the woke because its totally secular and completely outside of God and our eternal fates. Though King never imagined marching for transgender and woke ideology, what we see today is the end result of his "gospel" and ideology. Not to mention its destruction of the black family.

Its worth a read, because Kings actual views were a lot different than we have been led to believe. You can also see him discuss it on an ever deeper level on Jason Whitlocks latest show on youtube. While I always agreed with the surface ideals of equality, judging people by their character and such things, I now see there was a much darker side to his views as well that have done a lot of damage to the black community and led many people away from salvation through Christ (which is 1000 times more important that these secular issues).

I suspect most here are commenting based on a few snippets of the famous I have a dream speech and (just as I was guilty of) know little to nothing of the mans actual ideology in this aspect.

(01-19-2023 08:37 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  That is rather disconcerting to learn of that. I never knew that at all.

However, would I take MLK over the idiotic woke social justice warriors of modern day??? Absolutely. At least his peaceful protests were in fact peaceful protests.

Likewise, Trump's personal indiscretions didn't bother me because he was steering the country/world in the right direction. But yeah, he wasn't touting himself as a "reverend" either.

Basically agree with you here. King the idealism is still important to history. He seemed to believe in hard work, family and education as a way up and out of second-class citizenship. Though his own indiscretions in the family part certainly put a chink in his armor, he had many of the right ideas for a long-term solution to the racial problems of folks who were darker than blue.

I have to imagine it was difficult for him to live up to his own ideals. He obviously had high aspirations, and was the right man at the right place at the right time to try to do so. When his idealized image and living legend became that which other people added to, seeing him for what they wanted him to be and symbolizing him as such, and not as the actual man he was, it became a no-win situation for him. No one but our Lord could live up to that. His martyrdom, like with JFK, covered up and over a lot of his obvious faults. Both their widows capitalized on their deaths as a way to increase their own status by amping up the "legend" rhetoric of men who were, after all just imperfect men.

It is certainly shocking and disappointing to learn about these religious doctrine issues. But in the end is it really all that unsurprising? I agree, that those beliefs you highlighted would basically disqualify him from being what could reasonably be called a Christian. Then again, many other men throughout history for the past 2,000 years have started/led churches away from true Christian foundations by making up and/or ignoring traditions and teachings that go back to Christ Himself, in the name of "improving" the Church. At some point, you have to recognize that as good as their intentions were or might have been, these men who make up and teach their own versions of Christianity do themselves and their followers a grave disservice. If a church is based upon division and breaking away, no matter the reason or how good the intentions, you have to wonder about where that's going to lead. Ultimately, like it or not, no matter how much "good" their new added ideas seem to do in the short term, they are leading people away from Christ to one degree or another.

Some of Jesus' teachings are confusing to us mere mortals. To expect to know the mind of God perfectly is ridiculous for a human if you believe is the creator of the entire universe and us and everything else in it. Yet many throughout history and even today purport to be the one or ones who alone know better than God...if only we would listen to THEM, instead of what Christ actually said and taught, difficult though it may be for us to truly follow. Many have even started giant churches, broken away in the name of "improving" on what God designed and commanded. It would appear they are more Golden calves, no matter how shiny they seem.

Still others have gone the other way, rejecting the community that is God himself, in favor of an isolated, "personal" experience. I can think of one other "leader" who advocates going it alone when it comes to God: Lucifer, who rejected God and told him he knew better,thus eternally separating himself from God. He cannot by definition create anything--that is reserved for God alone. But Lucifer can and does take what God has made and break it and twist it into something the devil says is "better."

When I turn on the light-switch, I do not need to know exactly scientifically to a perfect understanding how electricity works in order to believe that it is real and true and it does what it does irrespective of what or whether I think about it or not. I can believe without perfect understanding of the mechanisms and thought behind it. That's called faith. Some think they need to "know" everything about God and why he did/does what He does in order to believe in His existence and omnipotence. That idea is certainly not biblical, or in the tradition that God's son taught and asked his chosen apostles to pass on throughout the world, giving them the lone and sole authority to do so and to decide, as imperfect men, how to do it, specifically commanding that what they chose to do wold be bound in Heaven as well as on Earth.

We are incredibly tiny beings with incredibly tiny and limited brains on a tiny blue planet in a vast, yet rational and ordered universe with billions of galaxies. How can we purport to only believe when we our tiny little selves perfectly and scientifically understand the Creator? A child can see the flaw, and the arrogance in that kind of "logic." But then, the Democrats and Communists "know" better than you, and can "explainabilty" it for yo. I don;t trust them and I don't trust those who base their teachings on breaking away from what God Himself commanded, no matter how "good" they seem. If God wants to choose Apostles like Judas and Peter, a traitor and a coward who the Lord Himself simultaneously admonished as Satan and as Leader of His one church on Earth, and continue to do so from time to time, neither I or you or anyone else rise to the position of knowing better than God or His reasons for doing so, which are out of time and out of our jurisdiction. But then, subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction are concepts beyond most people to begin with. Look how messed up our courts have become with demigods who "know better" than what the Law and our Constitution actually says. The arrogance and the folly.

I can look to the positive ideals of King, Gandhi, and others, but I don't have to believe literally that Washington actually chopped down a cherry tree to see that honesty and truth are worthy deals to uphold, present Congress and Judiciary being glaring examples of what happens when the opposite "knowing better" ideals are pursed. Get behind me, Satan!

(01-19-2023 10:28 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  When I turn on the light-switch, I do not need to know exactly scientifically to a perfect understanding how electricity works in order to believe that it is real and true and it does what it does irrespective of what or whether I think about it or not. I can believe without perfect understanding of the mechanisms and thought behind it. That's called faith. Some think they need to "know" everything about God and why he did/does what He does in order to believe in His existence and omnipotence. That idea is certainly not biblical, or in the tradition that God's son taught and asked his chosen apostles to pass on throughout the world, giving them the lone and sole authority to do so and to decide, as imperfect men, how to do it, specifically commanding that what they chose to do wold be bound in Heaven as well as on Earth.

I don't think there is a single person of sound mind and body on this earth that claims or thinks they "know" everything about God. One of the most basic aspects of salvation and Christianity is realizing that you are a small child and His thoughts are as far above you as the stars themselves. As Jesus said, you can only enter the Kingdom of God as a small child, totally humbling yourself to Him. That is totally incompatible with thinking you can fully comprehend the width and depth of God. As written in Deuteronomy and Romans, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever"

But salvation is 100% personal on an individual basis. It is not in any way a group thing, salvation only happens on an individual basis with a personal repentance and faith in Christ. Once you come to faith and salvation you are spiritually baptized into Christ with all believers, we then live our lives in service to each other through our faith. That is the Christianity the Bible teaches, anyone teaching a version different than that is not teaching the Biblical Christianity Christ and the Apostles taught us. It does not require us to be part of any particularly denomination or church, in fact the early church was soley based on small groups of people supporting and helping each other. Services and worship were held in homes in small groups.

No one should ever be afraid to break away from or leave a church that is teaching false doctrines. In fact if they are unwilling to correct those false doctrines and practices you shouldn't remain yoked to them. The NT teaches that specifically, that you do not endure and accept false doctrines and or corrupted churches. When a church goes astray from the sound doctrine of God's Word and refuses to course correct, you get out there lest you be led astray by their apostasy and false doctrines. That is not Eric's view, that is the NT view as written by Paul through the Holy Spirit.

All the social and secular advancement in the world inside of a society is meaningless if you die without Christ. As Jesus said, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his eternal soul? We can create the fairest and most equality driven society ever seen, we can have all the great thinkers and social leaders in the world to share wisdom, but its all meaningless in the end without that one thing.

(01-19-2023 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meh, pretty much every historical figure we put on a pedestal isn't exactly what who history says they are and they all had their shortcomings. The idea of MLK and the ideology that did make it to the history books is noble. Let them have it.

I agree, no one is perfect. Which is why I think all the statues coming down, school name changes, etc..., is asinine.

I'm always skeptical of "reverends" that become famous.

(01-19-2023 10:01 AM)mlb Wrote:  How we ever allowed separate schools, drinking fountains, restrooms, etc., and no ability to vote because of skin color or gender is beyond me.

And now you have libs wanting “white free safe spaces” and black only dorms on college campuses