Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Brother in Christ? 

Is American a Christian nation?

Thanks for this. As I starting to research mlk, I had heard that he might have changed his theology regarding the person an work of Christ, an possibly adopted a more orthodox belief. I just started looking for any evidence on that. I'll take a look at the material you've mentioned.

Belief in Christian Divinity means nothing if you don't KNOW Jesus personally. King did not. He wasn't a Christian. Period. Serial Adultery, dalliances with Prostitutes and liquor, not to mention Communist affiliations, prove King a useful idiot. Like so many "Heroes" King wasn't the man the media projected.

The Orthodox Church excommunicated Leo Tolstoy for being a heretic.

@@roberteaston6413 My point still stand though, that Gandhi was influenced through those writings by the tenets of Christianity. And the Orthodox church has its own problems...

Whether Dr. King was "Saved" is a fruitless question. God decides who's saved or lost. If Dr. Kings in heaven, he's supposed to be there. However; Jesus plainly states "By their fruits, you'll know them." The morning Dr. King lost his life, he got up late. According to Ralph Abernathy, the preceding night involved a Bottle of Whiskey and a prostitute, hardly an encouraging salvation indicator. A more poignant question, is does God use evil men to accomplish good? Ultimately, God accomplishes His purposes according to His designs.

@@ParaousiaComingnow As I just said, we'll leave the question of his salvation to God. As for the allegations by Abernathy, they should be taken with a grain of salt, considering he went on ABC saying he "didn't know what King did behind closed doors." On the night before King was assassinated he said they visited a house, where Abernathy fell asleep on a sofa. "I had awakened and I saw Dr. King coming from a room. I didn't say what he had done in that room" adding again he had no way of knowing what occurred. So there he immediately contradicted what was in his book...And we know he had suffered strokes at that point. It also seems strange that someone who cared for King would break a confidence in order to sell a book, and then basically retract the allegations when challenged. We should be careful of repeating slander based on the word of one unreliable witness. Christians are guilty of not doing due diligence in these matters - Ravi Zacharias is a good example. If you look at the evidence against him it's utter nonsense, yet just about every Christian pastor, even some I respect a great deal, rushed to believe the slander and couldn't be bothered reading the allegations. The "fruit" I'm more concerned about with King (because personal failings are common to all of us) is his heretical theology, which is far more serious. And as I said, it's hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to his view of God, not all Christians have a perfect understanding of the Godhead, but Dr King was well educated, so has less excuse. We just have to conclude that this man seemed to be personally and theologically flawed and leave it up to God to judge his soul. I am ok with judging his apparent sexual sin, but not on the basis of hearsay. Let's stick to the theological problems which are well documented.

You need to repent or you will perish as Jezebel perished to Hell. To use the Bible to try to destroy Christ's divinity, is like having homosexual sex at the pulpit leading people to the lake of fire. To use the Bible to lead people into bondage as they will never be free until they make Jesus their God. You should be ashamed of yourself

@@thereawakening9475 I am not ashamed of the truth of the gospel. And you shouldn’t be either.

If MLK didn't repent of his denial of what the Bible says about Jesus' divinity, then he is not a believer. Prayers to God, and answers from "Jesus" are not Biblical proofs of true belief, so they cannot be offered as evidence of true faith. Here's what MLK said about Jesus' divinity: "Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest of his devotion to God and the intimatcy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit." You can read the paper here: kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus This is flat-out heresy. Jesus said He was "one with God" even before the creation of the world (Jn 17), not a "man that has realized his true divine calling" or a man who became "a true son of God" or a man who "opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit". To the best of my knowledge, there is no indication that MLK recanted his heresies. I hope I'm wrong.

Yes, I agree with your theology over the theology paper he wrote as a young student in a liberal seminary. I would be interested after a sympathetic listen to the above sermon "Why Jesus called a man a fool" if you find evidence that perhaps his mind was renewed. A Utube search will yield an audio recording of that sermon.

@@davidbohonos3021 Thanks for the followup. I listened to the entire sermon as impartially as possible. I have nothing against MLK, in fact, I think he was an amazing orator. So it wasn't difficult to listen to him impartially. Specifically, I didn't hear anything in it that would suggest he recanted or changed his mind about his previous heresies. (Muslims can get a feeling of peace from praying to Allah; Bhuddists can get a sense of peace by chanting; Mormons can get a sense of peace by reading the Book of Mormon. None of that makes any of them true believers. It just means they had a sense of peace). The speech was an excellent motivation speech. I had no theological content to speak of, and nothing that would indicate he recanted of his former heretical views. If there's a segment of the speech you feel suggests otherwise, please mention it. I don't mind discussing it. Thanks.

​@Jesus Christ Is My Lord And Savior, thanks for your reply.​ It is perilous to discard the truth of King's God with a simple "whatever." King was a Negro slave. And yet, though he lacked the freedom to come and go as he pleased, hindered by segregated walls. King's God is of the Bible. And He's of the Bible without debate or proclaiming the same as a divine mystery. King stood in the fore of the last legs of a journey that witnessed our ancestral fathers breaking the final irons of Negro slavery. As of 10 August 1965 (the day America implemented the provisions of the Voting Rights Act), there are no more slaves. Paul is wrong in his claims that you're either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:14-19). Generations before this hour, we're to witness that there are NO SLAVES, as we're free to choose between good and evil. Because of the work Jesus accomplished, which witnessed the veil that separated the holiest of holies from the people rent in twain (Mark 15:38). Every man has the right and freedom to come unto the LORD by their own free will. Every man, that is, had this right except for those this world denigrated, harangued, oppressed, and enslaved as its Negro. Exercising their free will to come to the LORD was not a reality for ALL MEN, however, until 10 August 1965. I am a descendant of Negro slaves. What makes this exception of such unimaginable dimensions is that the beliefs that underpin this Triune God espoused by this church are a witness to the legacy of slavery and oppression that defined the legacy of the Negro. Born after 1965, I am that generation first to experience the freedom born and borne from the sacrifices of my ancestral fathers. I'm obligated to recognize from whence we've come as a people. However, we do not have a religion or Gospel that speaks to these realities. Our ministers and authorities espouse the same beliefs and doctrines that attest to the God that enslaved and oppressed our ancestral fathers. This Triune God is a god of violence and war, which bears witness to his legacy and history born in and borne by the west and this church. What's problematic, however, is that he's not of the Bible. No place within Scripture articulates the three persons "God-the-Father," "God-the-Son," and "God-the-Holy-Spirit." And even though many hold to this God and defend him with their last breath. They can never claim that he's a god of Peace. And it is on this basis we stand on the truth that this Triune God shares no part with the Bible's God. But no one can say the same about the God that dwelt with my ancestral fathers, even to King or my father. We find their God evinced in Exodus 14:14. It is there where Moses commanded the children of Israel to hold their peace that they bear witness to how "The LORD shall fight for you"(Exodus 14:14 KJV). Exodus 14:14 is unique in the history and legacy of Israel, as it is the only time Israel held her peace. After the LORD restored the waters of the Red Sea, Israel waged war with neighbors, friends, strangers, and foes. But this god embraced by Israel, evident from the days of Moses, is not the God of my ancestral fathers, even King. Our ancestral fathers held their peace. And even though they were not literate enough to understand the teachings of the Bible for themselves. What little they understood, they remained steadfast under the divine warning that "God don't like ugly." So, it is true that King's God is not of this church. But the God that prevailed with King and my ancestral fathers is of the Bible (Exodus 14:14, John 8:32).

Why would you say we have no sense of King's God. He told us.

​@@timffoster, thanks for your response. (Part I) Asking why I would say you "have no sense of King's God" is to ask, do you know the meaning, purpose, and objective of observing a sabbath? There's a stark difference between the god King envisions for himself, apart from the God that prevailed with King and my ancestral fathers. Having read King's essay, there's very little difference between King's God and the god of this church. Although Marlon reaches his conclusions by immersing himself in arguing the minutia of Jesus's divinity. King's God and the Triune God bear no resemblance to the God that prevailed with King and those this world maligned as Negro. The sabbath becomes the basis on which we distinguish between these gods. King, my father, and the generations that preceded them were Negro slaves. Meaning as Negro slaves, they relied on those who proclaimed and erected themselves as the Negro's superior, essentially the Negro's Master and Lord (ML), to get the moral and spiritual things, not just right but perfect. Perfect, in that the Negro did not have the freedom to exercise the divine obligation and right to seek the LORD for himself. Those who ruled and reigned over the Negro slave wielded life and death in every breath and utterance. Whether chattel or reconstructed slaves. Whether during the days he lived as 2/5ths of a man, which is the chattel epic. Or in the wake of the 13th Amendment's ratification (6 December 1865), when the Negro slave received the remaining 3/5ths of his humanity. For the Negro slave to even envision himself as a servant "of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men" (Ephesians 6:6-7 KJV), places him on the threshold of death. Daring to serve his oppressors as unto the LORD places the Negro slave at odds with his overlords because he challenges the social, cultural, religious, and political conventions that demanded that he knew, acknowledged, and remained in the Negro's place. Any word or act straying from these conventions incited force and violence from the broader community and government, often lethal force. Because of the nominal violence that engulfed their lives, neither King nor any generation before had hoped to come to the LORD by their own understanding. What you find reflected and intimated in the essay King writes, central to this video, is no more than a reaction to the violent god intimated and manifested by the hostile world in which King lived. Where King qualifies Jesus's divinity which sought to place the nature and ways of Jesus within man's reach, is merely a response to a Jesus whose divinity is incomprehensible in its might and glory. King sees this "incomprehensible divinity" as a scapegoat for a hostile world resigned to the belief that man was incapable of imitating or emulating Jesus's divine nature and way. Thus, with its scapegoat in hand. This hostile world justifies its hatred and hostility as its inability to imitate the image and likeness of a mighty god. Where King resolves Jesus's divinity as an outgrowth from a spiritual, social, cultural, and religious maturation, the hostile world argued then, as it does now, that, given man is such a fallen and depraved creature. God recognizes our depravity as the circumstances born from our birth in sin, whereby we find ourselves ever in need of a savior. Thus, we have a contrast in soteriology. Where King argues for works, the hostile world and church argue grace. And it is on this basis Marlon correctly draws his conclusion that King is not a Pauline Christian. However, the god King embraces bears a similitude with this church's Triune God. We reckon this similitude under the auspices of a god that rewards with wealth and property that he evidences his love and favor. On the same day, MLK delivered his "Drum Major" sermon. King also revealed the essence of his God (4 February 1968). What we discover about the essence of MLK's God is that it bears an image and likeness to the gods of this church, the synagogue, and the mosque.

@@timffoster (conclusion): After his "Drum Major" sermon, King holds a conclave with the media. During this gathering, King makes his pitch for what we'd understand as "reparations." It's an argument that contrasts how the government facilitated western settlement by whites, offering them every manner of governmental subsidy. While this same government delivered nothing for the newly freed chattel Negro slave or his reconstructed descendants. In a word, King said: "Now in this campaign, when we come to Washington, we're coming to get our check." (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pLV5y4utPKI.html). You should be aware that what King declared would never come to fruition. The LORD took him. Sixty days later, on 4 April 1968, King lost his life in Memphis, Tennessee, killed by an assassin's bullet while standing on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel. Though there are many reasons why men wished for King's death, the Vietnam War was the greatest. Only when he sought to barter with the souls of our ancestral fathers did he encounter what proved insurmountable. There's been threats and attempts nearer to King in prior years. But with King never having the chance to present that check, even more cash it, speaks louder than anything else. It declares that the legacy of my ancestral fathers is not for sale. This country has never given us anything our ancestral fathers did not suffer, bleed, and die for. The freedom every other ethnicity enjoys is a freedom we've yet to realize. The LORD, never allowing King even to present his demands to Washington, serves as a harrowing harbinger for this generation of proverbial bastards who demand reparations today. If the LORD took King, He has no concern with these reprobates, as they are nowhere near MLK. How, then, does King's demand for a check evince a god different from that God of our ancestral fathers? Here is where we concern ourselves with a sabbath. It bears to ask; how can we claim anything about the God that prevailed with the Negro slave? We surmise the nature of the God that prevailed with the Negro slave as we would with the fathers of any man or generation. I term this as "seeking the LORD's face" (Exodus 33:20). The LORD's establishment of a sabbath answers the question of why the LORD refuses Moses's demand for the LORD to reveal His face to Moses (Exodus 33:12-23). We seek the LORD's face anytime we perform a sabbath. A sabbath entails calling yesterday into remembrance that we reckon how our ancestral fathers prevailed with the LORD against how the LORD prevailed with our ancestral fathers. Whereby, if there's no variance between what our ancestral fathers declare as being of the LORD and what they do. The caveat is that what results at the mouth and hands of our ancestral fathers did not rely on force and violence to make things so. Then we attest that what our ancestral fathers said and did was in harmony with the LORD. To settle the same as the sabbath, they must recognize this harmony as the LORD's face. Yet, if we have a variance between what our ancestral fathers declared and did, apart from what manifests. It would be very worrying if our ancestors allied themselves with violence to accomplish the ends they sought. Then what we witness as a "variance" becomes the element that serves us as the LORD's face (Exodus 33:12-23). This understanding of what it means to observe a sabbath opens our understanding of why the LORD rejects Moses's demand to reveal His face. From the days of Adam, man possessed every element necessary to witness and revel in the LORD's face. That is, from the days of Adam, if a man or a people wished to witness the LORD's face, it merely required a sabbath. It merely demanded that they call into remembrance what their ancestral fathers proclaimed and settled in the earth as their truths. And then see how what was said and done lasted over the generations. Did what their fathers claimed and did prevail as truths, or did these claims fall into ruin? For this same undertaking, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, the LORD prepares for us a litmus test as when we presume. Charging man with seeking His face is why, from the beginning, God makes the Sabbath Day a divine incumbency. Exemplifying how He's not a capricious or flippant god in that, He never demands of man what He does not observe Himself. God uses the Seventh Day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3) to establish the Sabbath Day, in that God is the first to observe a sabbath. Scripture preserves this for us in that God observes a sabbath each day preceding the Seventh Day (Genesis 2:1-3). We reckon God's observance as the "evening and morning was the...day." And yet He makes it plain to man. In hopes that man makes just one day out of the seven a Sabbath Day. God accounts for the whole of what takes place on each of the previous six days on the Seventh Day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3) by declaring this day the "Sabbath Day." The Seventh Day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3) is the only day God assigns a name. For those aware, given the actions taken by God in the beginning, it means every day is potentially a sabbath. For those who are aware, this implies that it's possible for a person to constantly seek to dwell in the presence of the LORD by calling yesterday into remembrance that he discerns the LORD's face. But that's not of either this church or its God. When we consider King within this context of a Sabbath Day wherein we seek the LORD's face. We walk in the assurance that there's a variance between the god King revealed in his writings as he shared his understanding. In the wake of having demanded a form of remuneration for our ancestral struggles and sufferings. We witness how the LORD prevails with King and King's God. It is this silencing of King that speaks loudly to how no man or government shall ever claim that it was by their hand that they delivered the Negro from the living hell he endured. Either unbeknownst or appreciated by King, by holding their peace. Our ancestral fathers forged the sacred space for the LORD to take up their fight. And take up their fight the LORD did since it is Truth that assured us our freedom, not by breaking bones or shedding blood, but peace (John 8:32). With this, you can stand assured that you have no concept or understanding as to the God that took up my ancestral fathers' fight. Nor do you have any means or basis for understanding the freedom by which we're free. Our deliverance did not come by God-Jesus the Triune God. He's a god of force and violence who sees war as the ultimate arbiter of his will. The God that delivered our ancestral fathers from their living hell is the God of Peace.

@@notofthischurch2822 just so we're all on the same page, what church and God are you talkin about? ( I tried re reading your comment, but most of it sounds like nonsensical ramblings, unhitch from world history. I was born in Nigeria and my great grandparents were likely bona-fide slaves. Africa has more slaves today than the United States ever had in its entire history from 1619 till today. And their slave masters are also black.) The overwhelming majority of Africans I know today, across multiple countries, are either Christian or Muslim. And the God they affirm seems to bear no resemblance to the god you're suggesting King Affirmed. So I'm quite curious to know what church and god you're talking about. Thanks.

Except for the fact He defined marriage as between man and woman, condemned all fornication and sexual immorality, called people to repentance or perish, said He is God in the flesh, etc. Exact opposite of woke. You remade Him into what you want Him to be. Not based on His actual teachings.

@@Tron4JC funny, I’d say the same thing about you: You’ve created Jesus in your own image. I could cite a half dozen verses to the contrary. And don’t get me started on works. I’ve got no skin in the game as I left Christianity two decades ago. As I said, we’d welcome MLK into our ranks. Shalom

@@theunapologeticjew no, I didn’t create Jesus in my image. I went by what He said. Jesus never approved of the woke stuff you promote be it gay marriage, transgenderism, abortion etc. The fact is you don’t care what Jesus teaches but pretend to in order to own Christian’s. It is disingenuous.

​@@theunapologeticjewTUA, you say you left "Christianity". Interesting, are you saying you don't believe the Bible? The Bible is the word of God of which every person who ever lived will be judged. The scriptures teach that God would send a savior, to redeem, save, mankind. The reality is he made salvation, or redemption, AVAILABLE to everyone. Not that we're automatically saved. Just like the children of Israel, the angels, and all of humanity, we all have a choice to make. The Lord Jesus, the prophets, and the scriptures emphatically teach that everyone has a choice to make and will judged accordingly. The Lord Jesus himself, along with the rest of the scriptures teach that heaven and hell are both absolutely real. You don't want to go to the wrong place. It's worse than you could ever ever ever imagine. There are tons of people who have had hell dreams and or visions, and or actual visitations. Just like many people have had similar dreams, etc about heaven. Bottom line is you don't want to go to the wrong place. There are tons of people there who refused to believe it was true. Now it's too late. Please don't be like them.

@@markbrown3841 the first two lines of your comment are not mutually exclusive. Suffice it to say that we have very different interpretations of the Scriptures.