Why MLK was NOT Christian

He denies the trinity. Denies the divinity of Christ. Claims that we are the one who "chose" Jesus to be the Christ. Claims the resurrection and immortality are akin to "magic" and that Christianity only exists due to pagan influences. I only 5 documents, he exposes himself as blatantly anti-christian. As someone who used the christian community as a vehicle for his politics.

Martin Luther King Jr was a great civil rights leader, the greatest of all time. But idol worship is not the christian way. MLK was not a true christian. MLK was sadly, holding to false beliefs contary to scripture. For that, I pity him.

 

Breaking news! There are differences within Christianity creating hundreds of different sects. You judge him by your sectarian beliefs.

Christians run the gamut from Catholicism to snake handling , poison drinking fundamentalism.

Yep he was a christian.

 

As stated, he was a Christian. However, so what if he wasn't? It doesn't discount his contributions to the civil rights movement.

 

What makes someone a Christian, and who gets to decide that? It seems strange that someone can believe that there is a Christ (whatever that means) and who places utmost importance to them, and for them not to be called a Christian.

 

Christ is the translation of the word "Messiah" - one that will lead people to salvation. Yet MLK denied the existence of Heaven, denied the divinity of Christ, and the denied the second coming of Christ.

The only strange thing is that someone could deny the Christ and call themself a christian.

 

Jesus was often identified as the Christ, but his nature as both divine and human wasn't established until later. That indicates to me that it is at least possible to deny the divinity without denying the Christ. Similar arguments go for your other points.

What makes one a Christian, and who gets to decide that?

 

Another gatekeeper for Christianity. How quaint.

 

If MLK wasn't a Christian that is excellent news.

 

Goofy thread, with a bias that could have been better hidden..

Anyway, Christianity is pretty much anything you want it to be, it's a buffet style religion.

More to the point, a lot of the Founding Fathers were Deists, so this is hardly something new.

 

MLK adhered to the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is quite clear from your video you do not. Which one of you is a true Christian depends on whether you think a true Christians follows the message of Jesus or follows the Bible literally.

 

It's better to judge someone by what he did than by what he said, and MLK made a great contribution to the equal rights movement, and society in general. Sticking labels on people to try and devalue their achievements is a common one, and pretty disgusting.

 

Of course you can prove this?

 

MLK is a positive historical figure . He will be forever young. Murdered by powerful men.

 

How did he deny the divinity of Christ?

What specifically did he say?

 

He claimed Christianity is based off of Greek Mythology and that Christ is actually the son of Zeus. Later he elaborated by saying Christianity is simply Mithraism with a new coat of paint. Both statements are viewed as laughable even by secular scholars. MLK was a joke.

 

I see a statement about Christianity but that's not about Christ. I'd like to know the context in which he said Jesus was the son of Zeus.

 

Where did he claim any of that? Sources please.

 

Since OP seems to be light on sources, here is what I assume he's talking about, an assigned essay from Seminary.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/...-living-early-christian-century-led-christian
In particular read the preamble, it suggests at least to me that the conclusions might not be MLK's views, as much as it is him bringing up the angles that he's been asked to bring up in the essay.

Relevant parts include:

A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin’s First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.

The second doctrine in our discussion posits the virgin birth. This doctrine gives the modern scientific mind much more trouble than the first, for it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father. First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth.

The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, 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.6 In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know
(source above)​

Actually, the essay is quite short, you might want to read it instead of relying on my selection of quotes.

He also mentions points from what I assume is https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/study-mithraism. It is a bit longer and I haven't read it in full, but for the sake of completeness, I include the link (edit: the conclusion might be worth giving a read).

 

Exactly.

Correct.

 

No, not "lead" people to salvation but to bring it with him. Jesus, therefore, could not possibly have been the Messiah. Anyway, he never said that he was.

Believing (or simply admitting) that Jesus existed and was a note-worthy prophet makes anyone a "Christian". People who follow the superstitious, man-made hocus-pocus of bread-into-water, the trinity, and resurrection are something entirely different.

 

Thank you. Both interesting papers.

 

There are many Christian sects that do not believe the trinity. They are collectively called Unitarian Christians. Is the Opie suggesting that his personal ideal is the only version of Christianity?

 

Thank you for that. It seems Mr. Potato's theory won't fly. These are issues every thinking Christian must face and overcome, but many have learned to suppress their critical thinking ability.

 

If you are born to a Jewish mother then you are a Jew (unless you converted to something else). If you are born to a Muslim father then you are a Muslim (unless ..... ummm not sure what Islam considers converts). If you were baptised a Christian (and haven't converted to something else) then you are a Christian. Martin Luther King was a Christian. Make no mistake about it.

 

The OP States

"He denies the trinity. Denies the divinity of Christ. Claims that we are the one who "chose" Jesus to be the Christ. Claims the resurrection and immortality are akin to "magic" and that Christianity only exists due to pagan influences. I only 5 documents, he exposes himself as blatantly anti-christian. As someone who used the christian community as a vehicle for his politics"

Don't see how denying the Trinity makes one not a follower of the teachings of Christ. Jesus did not believe in the Trinity either - nor did the disciples or the early Church Fathers - or the author of the Gospel of Mark.

The earliest story of Jesus - comes from Mark. Mark knows of no Virgin Birth .. Jesus is deified - By GOD - at his Birth - a vision from the sky "You are my Son"

This is not a "Trinity" - this is the standard story of a God adopting a human - one told millions of times over in religions and myths.

That this particular human ends up a human sacrifice - is not new either. In any case - this is the story of Mark.

Jesus is presented as "a Man" - of 30 years age. God interacts with that man - injects him with the spark of divinity via the Holy Spirit.
This man is able to speak God's word directly through the Holy Spirit - described by the author of John as "the Logos" emissary between man and God - but John does not yet exist.

Yes the Jesus of Mark speaks of a future resurrection - when God will Return - and at that time Jesus will act as Judge - determining who gets in -and who gets out - on the basis of works -as per the Sermon on the Mount - Sermon where Jesus describes what it takes to get through the pearly gates.

The Trinity - nor Salvation on the basis of "Faith - Faith in the promise of the sacrifice" - a promise that even in most glowing terms - can be described as faith in the idea that Jesus "might" forgive your sins. - Never that they have already been forgiven by his sacrifice.

This is not the Jesus of Mark - and certainly the Trinity is not part of the beliefs of Christianity at the time - having only Mark to go on.