No need to recant what he said, the tomb was empty!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was MLK Jr. a Christian?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Again, I quoted the letter and demonstrated his orthordox statement.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Me to my self: Why do “these posters” address his behavior and not the topic?
My self to me:
His post is a serious misrepresentation, and a bit hypocritical. First, it only quoted one post of one poster. Second, that post commented on other posts, not him. The one post was a quote out of context with no references.
The other was an arrogant, self-indicting response to a reasonable request. While one cannot rule out the possibility that his posts represent the true character of the poster, the assessments addressed only the content and tone of his posts.
Oh, and third, he posted this even though there were already several posts addressing the topic, his posts specifically, giving information from the sermon he quoted out of context without reference.
Me to my self: Thanks for the illuminating clarification.
My self to me: Thanks for asking.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Yes, as has been pointed out, King was using doublespeak. But according to King:
The resurrection happened, but it doesn’t matter what you believe about it. (False)
It doesn’t matter whether it was a bodily resurrection or merely soul survival. (False)
The “disciples,” that is, actual witnesses, believed it was a flesh and bone resurrection. (True) Paul on the other hand believed no such thing, but engaged in syncretism. (False)
The tomb was somehow empty, but it doesn’t matter in what way, or what that meant. (False)
Again, I read the entire letter several times. I studied the letter in High School (I suppose most my age have).
Is there any reason to assume MLK meant something different with the language he uses than his earlier explanation?
Like I said, he may have changed his beliefs. You certainly assume he did. But there is no evidence supporting your conclusions.
I hope he did, BTW. I like his view of Atonement.
But reading MLK post Crozer it does not appear that he has. He stil viewed Paul as referring to a spiritual as opposed to a bodily resurrection and leaves a bodily resurrectional optional.
I take it you just want MLK to be Christian despite evidence to the contrary. You call him a liar just wanting good grades, without evidence. You dismiss post Crozer writings others have mentioned.
If wishes were horses, huh. Well, I also wish he was Christian and would love to find he lied and is a believer.
Why do posters hurl false charges addressing behavior and not content? Because of animosity.
Are these supposed to be MLK Jr quotes? Or are they the paraphrases of agenda driven commentators?
Once again JonC misrepresents my view, even though I have protested twice.
Did MLK Jr say Paul opposed Christ's bodily resurrection?
Yes, your conclusion about MLK Jr has been presented clearly.
Yes I say unless the claims of bogus doctrine held by MLK Jr are supported in his sermons and letters they are suspect.
And just because while in school you tell your teachers what they want to hear does not make you a non-Christian.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The problem with the position in your posts is that it attempts to interpret a part of King’s doublespeak in ways that he himself refused to do.
King goes out of his way to explain that it doesn’t matter what one believes about the resurrection. Go back and read his words again. All of them. In context. To MLKJ, that empty tomb was no proof of bodily resurrection. To MLKJ, the eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Christ were no proof of bodily resurrection.
I doubt MLK Jr lacked the character not to express his beliefs whike attending college.
I say this because MLK seemed to be a man of character. Also, there is no evidence Crozer would have graded him poorly for holding a different view (most theological colleges do not grade on indoctrination).
Also, to suggest MLK Jr had no choice but to attend Crozer. After his undergraduate work at Morehouse Colkege MLK chose Crozer BECAUSE of its unorthodox doctrine and liberal theology (See MLK's Autobiography, this is his words and documents published by his widow).
If we cannot accept MLK's own words about his beliefs, his own reasons for attending Crozer, his own explanations of his "gospel" and its purpose then we cannot call ourselves honest men.
That said, you prefer a myth to the man. I grant the importance of his work is preserved, but I don't understand why you desire to elevate a man.
I have a deep appreciation for MLK. Also Jefferson. And even more towards Gibran. But I am unwilling to cheapen our faith to include those men as I have no right to do so.
Like you, I appreciate fiction. But unlike you I prefer to keep my fiction separated from history. I don't even read historical fiction.
Another issue is @Van has created an elaborate fiction to support his myth.
He pretends MLK had no choice after completing his undergraduate work at Morehouse but to attend Crozer for his theological studies, and while there MLK just wrote what the school wanted to hear to get a good grade.
MLK claimed that he chose Crozer because of its unorthodox teaching and liberal theology. MLK said it was there that he studied in earnest and developed his social gospel.
The difference here is that MLK is really a hero of mine for his accomplishments, despite his flaws. I recognize he was not Christian, that he was unfaithful to his wife, that he made questionable alliances, etc. For @Van MLK is more of a comic book hero that never truly existed.
We can, of we dare, look at Christians of the past the same way. A W Tozer is one of my favorites. But he also neglected his family.
Why do Christians often elevate men to something they were not? I think this is natural (human nature) which testifies to the Word of God as the Hebrew heros of the faith were so flawed one had to see the hand of God rather than man in the work.
So you are saying the statements were not quotes from MLK Jr? I thought he clearly said, it does not matter what we believe, the tomb was empty!!!
I think what @RighteousnessTemperance& is saying is that we should allow MLK's own explanation (e.g., of the "empty tomb") stand for what MLK meant (a "spiritual resurrection").
We all know how you would explain MLK's words. What we don't know is why your explanation should be believed and MLK's explanation dismissed when it comes to MLK's words.
You have got to be kidding, all colleges grade based on their teachings.
Did I suggest MLK Jr had to attend Crozer? Please provide the quote.
Did I say we cannot accept MLK Jr own words from his sermons and letters? Nope
Did I say I prefer the myth (that MLK Jr was a Christian)? Nope, I said give him the benefit of assumed innocence.
I desire to elevate Truth, not the possibly biased opinions of men.
Last edited:
You continue to characterize MLK Jr views based on a paper submitted for a grade. You continue to not provide evidence from his sermons and letters. Why should we believe guilt without evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Folks, now my position is falsified, but no quote is provided. The house of cards to disparage MLK Jr on his birthday holiday has collapsed.
You've got a be kidding.
I take it you have never attended a theological seminary or had to take a philosophy class.
Most theological colleges accept atheists. This doesn't mean they teach atheism, or that the atheist has to pretend to be Christian. They express and defend their beliefs and recieve a grade based on their paper, not their belief.
Most (if not all) seminaries (grad school) requires the student to hold Christian beliefs (they provide a questionare that is to be answered honestly, and typically references). BUT they do not grade on acceptance or expression of the Seminary's position.
Not true.
I characterize MLK's beliefs based on his statement of faith (and conclusions) from Crozer, his interactions with Crozer after he graduated, his letters published by his widow in 1998, his mentorship by Proctor, his work with Jones, and his papes published in his autobiography..
Upon what do you base your idea that MLK lied about his beliefs to get into Crozer and lied in his papers there to get a good grade?
Lol.....no.
The MLK holiday is based on his work as a civil rights leader. It should be a holiday.
But Christians need to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to any civil rights leader.
MLK explained his belief, stood upon his beliefs expressed at Crozer as the most important in terms of his social gospel (again, read his autobiography).
You worship MLK (dont get me wrong - not as a god). But your worship of the man has skewed your understanding of history.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Do you agree with MLKJ verbatim that “the disciples felt that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up”? Note that he twice says felt rather than believed.
Do you agree verbatim with MLKJ that “Then Paul…tried to synthesize the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the Jewish Hebrew doctrine of resurrection”?
Do you agree with MLKJ that Paul’s approach was not in agreement with the “disciples” view “that it was a physical [bodily] resurrection”?
See post #54 for the fuller quote.
Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. Then paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection.
Some people felt, the disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. Then paul came on the scene, who had been trained in greek philosophy, who knew a little about greek philosophy and had read a little, probably, of plato and others who believed in the immortality of the soul, and he tried to synthesize the greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the jewish hebrew doctrine of resurrection.
- Status