MLK’s Seminary Papers Prove He was not a Scholar–or Believer!

A person’s writing reveals much about himself or herself. I have spent many days reading Martin Luther King’s Crozer Seminary papers. They are very revealing as to what he believed and what his motives were. Note that these are not emails or notes to friends but academic papers with the presumption of scholarship. Furthermore, he had already been graduated from Morehouse College.

In plowing through King’s writings during the holidays, I found that he was very careless and poorly educated. He often started a sentence with the first two letters in caps, he repeated words, and he left the suffix or “s” off words. Misspellings are numerous and he seldom used commas! He evidently did not know the difference in led and lead since he made that mistake many times. He also did not know that there is no word undermind confusing it with undermine. His work is not the quality of a seminary student but maybe an average college freshman!

King’s major problem was his heresy. He easily disassociated himself from traditional Christianity and it is shocking that so many Christians and Conservatives refuse to hold his feet to the theological fire. Principled people traffic in truth and eschew error in anyone and everyone. Such people do not bow to “sacred cows.”

In a paper written on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Moreover, King posited the theological error that Scripture was subpoenaed to “appear before the judgement [sic] seat of reason.” He continued: “They realized that if they wanted to get an objective standard of reference they would they would [sic] have to go beyond the pages of the old [sic] testament [sic] into the path that lead [sic] to that locked door.” King was favoring the position that the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record.

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that the non-canonical books were as good as or better than the Old Testament books! “To my mind, many of the works of this period were infinitely more valuable than those that received canonicity. The materials to justify such statements are found mainly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These works, although presented pseudonymously, are of lasting significance to the Biblical student.” He is saying the contradictions, conflicts, and confusion of non-biblical books are better than the God-inspired books!

He also decided that the Genesis accounts of man’s creation and the Flood were not original–or accurate. King concluded that the writer of Genesis took information from the Gilgamesh Epic. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise pagan literature.

King concludes his paper dealing with archeology and the Old Testament: “If we accept the Old Testament as being ‘true’ we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.” No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture. And Moses did write the Pentateuch.

In a paper titled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” King let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. Note the title alone is incriminating. The doctrines of Christ did not come about because of “experiences” of the early Christians! They came about because the Holy Spirit moved upon men to write about eternal truths.

King declared, “But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, [Christ’s deity, virgin birth, and physical resurrection] and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically [sic] untenable.” Untenable means something that cannot be defended or maintained. You only thought you could defend the doctrines surrounding Christ.

He added, “Saint Paul and the early church followers could have never come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine if there had not been some uniqueness in the personality of the historical Jesus.” So the early Christians had no other reason to believe He was deity? What about His miraculous birth? What about walking on water? What about raising the dead? What about giving sight to the blind? What about rising from the dead? What about Christ’s declaration: “I and my Father are one.” No, no reason at all!

Returning to the divinity of Christ, King concluded: “So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og [sic] God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.” So all men have the potential of being divine!

King was a great speaker, a crusader, and had courage but he was not a believer! He had no regard for truth. He can be respected for his contribution to civil rights but not revered, respected, and remembered as a Christian leader for that he was not.

My critics should remember Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth.” So, I won’t be honoring King this year as I have not in past years.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is available at amazon.com for $3.99.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

EVOLUTION

Fact, Fraud or Faith?

by Don Boys, Ph.D.

EVOLUTION

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Purchase Now from Amazon

Posted in: race

Leave a Comment () ↓

Leave a Comment via Facebook