Revealing the very crass, crude, and corrupt King would destroy the hero worship of most Americans. King is not held to the same standard of “lesser” men; therefore preachers, pundits, and politicians refuse to tell the truth about him! Is that not black privilege? Moreover, have other black leaders assumed that they too have a right not to be judged by a high standard of civility, godly living, and personal conduct–Oh, all right, how about simple honesty?

Some King defenders excused his very close association with Communist activists such as Abner W. Berry, Bayard Rustin (who spent time in jail for public homosexual acts), Hunter Pitts O’Dell, Stanley Levison (bag man for the Communist Party in the U.S.), Robert Williams, and Carl and Anne Braden (convicted of conspiring to bomb the home of a Black and place the blame on “white segregationists.”) All the above were vile Communists dedicated to the overthrow of our government, but King climbed in bed with them. He was defended by his followers and since his mission was so sacred, he was forgiven. Black privilege on steroids.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy warned King to sever connections with the Communists that surrounded him but he refused to listen. Finally, President Kennedy told King: “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.” Even then, King discussed, delayed, and dissimulated.

King’s many grammatical errors and plagiarism were admitted by King’s family and the plagiarism was characterized by King defenders as “textual appropriation.” King was “only doing what Blacks do.” That is a slander of all black scholars. Others identified his thievery as “borrowings,” “voice merging,” “resonances,” “intertextualizations,” “blending,” “alchemizing,” and other whoppers. King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University from another author but the university did not revoke, recall, or repudiate his degree! No white student would have been treated so kindly. It all translates: Black privilege. Special rules for special people.

Had I been a member of King’s church or a preacher in his movement, I would have charged him with heresy, tried him in a religious court, and stripped him of his religious credentials. He provided evidence of his heresy and heresy is not cancelled out by Black privilege!

King’s graduate 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,” let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. 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.” 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 not a believer and any honest Bible scholar of any persuasion will admit that that statement alone would disqualify King being recognized as a Christian, let alone a leader in any Christian group.

He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth but a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deal with them from the same perspective.

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.”

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” King was saying that you are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.

As to the atonement of Christ, he wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He added that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral.” Any white Baptist preacher would be drummed out the ministry for such heresy but King had special privilege.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that 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.” Any study of those books will easily confirm the fact that they are forgeries, foolishness, and fraudulent and did not come close to the canonical books which were inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life.

A Black preacher encapsulated King’s theology and philosophy better than anyone else: “It is as though Socrates, Thoreau, Hegel, and Jesus were all dumped together into one philosophical bowl like tossed salad.” Then Gandhi was tossed in to add additional spice to the muddle!

When King received the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest man to receive it, he said: “I am a minister of the Gospel.” He was an ordained minister but not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! He preached “another gospel,” and his Black privilege did not guarantee him a place in Heaven.

Moreover, I cringe to hear him called a “Baptist.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

I resent historians and media who refuse to deal with truth whether it is about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. Or, about preachers whether it be Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bennie Hinn–or King. It is astounding that many conservatives refuse to acknowledge the historical record but emphasize only a small but commendable portion of a hero’s life. Therefore, they don’t feel cowardly in their very selective stand.

For the record, Johnson was a thief, liar, and foul-mouthed fornicator. The best thing he did for America was not run for reelection. That is not to say that he did not accidently accomplish some good during his stint in office. Moreover, it is a fact that Blacks were often intimidated and refused voting rights in some southern states and it is good that that has been corrected. However, one should not then leap to the conclusion that it is discrimination to demand that everyone prove citizenship when voting. That is not discrimination but common sense. Nor is it wrong to reject any ploy that permits a person to vote multiple times in various districts or makes it easy to commit voter fraud. In our desire to do good, we must not do stupid.

King was a social worker who used the ministry to accomplish his mission and let me be clear that there were many wrongs that needed to be righted. Most of the young people who faced the white bullies with dogs and clubs were heroes. Some of them even lost their lives to white thugs. King was an opportunist who accomplished some good. However, because King was black and was killed by a white racist who should have been executed within a few months of his crime, most media and academia refuse to research, recognize, and report the truth about King. I do so because I don’t worship anyone and try to hold everyone to the same standard.

Many reading this, including most conservatives, will be offended at the suggestion that King might not have been a Christian. But then a person is not a Christian because he professes to be or because he belongs to a “Christian” Church or because he is baptized. According to the Bible, one becomes a Christian when he or she exercises faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. King, according to his own words was not a believer!

We can know much about a person if we study what he has written, and I have spent many hours reading King. His seminary papers are very revealing as to what he believed and what his motives were. The King papers are courtesy of the King family and those papers prove that he was not only an unbeliever but far from being a scholar! Since no one else will do so, I will try to set the record straight.

I can live with my motives and I hope you can live with the truth. Some of this information is from my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color available at amazon.com with documentation. Please note that I will not deal with King’s philandering, plagiarism, politics, or partying.

Today, my main interest is to look at the evidence for proof of King’s salvation, not whether he was an accomplished community organizer and admired civil rights leader.
King received his B.D. from Crozer Seminary then started to work on his Ph.D. at Boston University. All the following information is from that time period.

King’s seminary and university papers show his taking a scalpel to excise the core doctrine of Christ’s physical resurrection from the Bible and from history: “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.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighed in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do many of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.” Furthermore, there are scores of carefully documented books that support Christ’s physical resurrection. Any scholar would know that.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote: “it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King further wrote: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker.” King was not objective and in my opinion not a deep thinker.

In a paper at Crozer titled “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” his professor rebuked him suggesting that it would be good if he proofread his papers before turning them in! He was given a B+ by his professor. In this paper he misspelled “Samaria,” “learned,” “agonizing,” “omniscient,” “omniscience,” “reliance,” “orbit,” “warmest,” “intimacy,” “inadequate,” and others. That was graduate work! I would have given him a D, if he rewrote the paper maybe a C.

King wrote, “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. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise, promote, and protect paganism.

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.” Surely he blushed to write about errors since his papers and books are riddled with errors or all kinds. When he purloined pages from other authors he also stole their mistakes!

In one of King’s papers at Crozer on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Maybe I will do another column on his astounding number of mistakes.
No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture and he clearly denied the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and the veracity of Scripture. By any objective standard King was not a Christian. Therefore, on January 15 I will be working as usual then have dinner with friends at our favorite Chinese restaurant. After all, because it is also my birthday, the dinner of steak, shrimp, and Peking duck is free.

You can honor King as a crusader if you please, but not as a legitimate Christian leader. A Christian he was not.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”