100percentfedup.com
FACT-CHECK: MLK Jr. Denied The Virgin Birth, Resurrection of Jesus, Trinity and Divinity of Jesus?
EDITOR’S NOTE: some of you are not going to like this article. And that’s ok. I don’t cover things only to make you happy, I cover the news and the TRUTH wherever I find it. And so I’m going to show you some things that might make you angry, but I’m also going to bring you the research behind it.
I really did not want to have to write this article…
In fact, I set out to “Fact-Check” it with the hopes of bringing you an article telling you these claims that are going viral online today on this Martin Luther King Jr. holiday are bogus.
Unfortunately, that is not where my research took me.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so famous for his work in the Civil Rights Movement and as a Pastor (somehow he became a baptist despite his father literally naming him after Martin Luther, but that’s a different topic for a different day) and of course for his assassination that he got a national holiday named after him, which we are celebrating today.
You probably got today off of work or school because of it.
So he must have been the best guy ever, right?
And he also must have been an incredible theologian and pastor too, right?
Well, let’s start with this post right here, which is one of many going viral today claiming that MLK Jr. denied (1) the Virgin Birth, (2) the resurrection of Jesus, (3) the Trinity and (4) the divinity of Jesus:
MLK Jr. denied the:
– Virgin Birth– Bodily resurrection of Jesus– Trinity– Divinity of Jesus
He was no Christian and he’s certainly no man we should have a holiday for pic.twitter.com/nBaY3TsdYd
— Smash Baals (@smashbaals) January 19, 2026
OUCH!
I mean, those are kind of the big four, don’t you think?
Or at least the big three!
How could you possibly be a pastor and deny those core claims of the Christian faith?
So….it must be fake, right?
Well, actually it’s not.
Actually, the claims are not taken out of context or invented out of whole-cloth, the claims are actually taken directly from his writing and papers in seminary.
Per Grok here are the dirty details:
Yes, the claims in the X post about Martin Luther King Jr.’s seminary papers are accurate.
During his time at Crozer Theological Seminary (1948–1951), King wrote several papers expressing liberal theological views that rejected literal interpretations of key orthodox Christian doctrines, including the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, Trinity, and inherent divinity of Jesus. He treated these as symbolic or mythological constructs influenced by historical, cultural, and experiential factors rather than factual events. This aligns with the broader liberal theology he encountered, which emphasized higher criticism and viewed such doctrines as products of early Christian experiences and Greco-Roman influences.
Key Evidence from King’s Papers
King’s writings are publicly available through academic archives. Below is a breakdown based on two primary papers he authored.
“The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus” (November 1949 – February 1950)
In this paper, King explicitly critiques the orthodox Christian view of Jesus’s divinity as an “inherent metaphysical substance,” including references to Jesus as the “second person of the Trinity,” “very God of very God,” and incarnate through the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary.
He calls this perspective “quite inadequate” and “harmful and detrimental” because it implies Jesus had supernatural advantages, making him unrelatable as a model for human moral achievement.
Instead, King argues that Jesus’s divinity was not ontological (inherent from birth) but achieved through his “filial consciousness,” absolute dependence on God, and moral struggle—making him a “prototype” for others who submit to God’s will.
He emphasizes Jesus’s full humanity, including limitations such as hunger, ignorance (for example, not knowing the timing of the Parousia), and temptations overcome by will rather than divine essence.
“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” (September – November 1949)
In this paper, King analyzes these doctrines as arising from the early Christians’ profound experiences with Jesus’s unique personality, which they could not explain through ordinary human terms. He removes their literal meaning in the following ways:
Divine Sonship:King argues this doctrine emerged because early followers “found God in Jesus” through direct encounters, leading them to elevate him under Greek philosophical influence, including distrust of the physical and the Logos concept. He describes it not as a logical conclusion but as an “inescapable solution” to Jesus’s perceived spiritual superiority.
Virgin Birth:King states the evidence is “too shallow to convince any objective thinker.” He notes its absence in early New Testament documents such as Mark and describes the Isaiah prophecy as a mistranslation, contrasting the Hebrew term for “young woman” with the Greek rendering as “virgin.” He attributes the doctrine to Greek mythological influences and pre-scientific attempts to explain Jesus’s spiritual uniqueness through biological exceptionalism.
Bodily Resurrection:King presents the resurrection as symbolic of Christ’s conquest over death, rooted in inner faith derived from experiences with Jesus’s “magnetic power,” rather than external historical proof, which he describes as “found wanting.” He explains that first-century faith took “outward form” as a resurrection narrative, but that its true meaning lay in belief in the “living, deathless person of Christ.”
Context and Evolution of Views
These papers reflect King’s early seminary explorations and were shaped by liberal theologians such as William Newton Clarke and George W. Davis, his professor, who graded the first paper a B+ and remarked on its appeal to “the liberal mind.”
While some conservative critics describe these views as heretical denials of core Christianity, others note that King’s later public ministry emphasized pastoral leadership and social activism rather than theological specificity. There is no evidence that he formally retracted these positions, and they align with his lifelong commitment to a social gospel focused on ethical living and justice rather than metaphysical doctrine.
Critics and supporters alike agree that these writings demonstrate King’s serious intellectual engagement with theology and his prioritization of symbolic meaning over literalism in an effort to make faith relevant within a modern, scientific framework.
I’m sorry folks, but believing in an actual, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is CORE to the belief of Christianity.
Without it, everything else falls apart.
Sorry, but that’s kind of a deal-breaker.
How could a pastor believe that?
But then it gets worse because then there are other claims floating around like this:
HOLY CRAP…
Martin Luther King Jr:
-Serial adulter having affairs with multiple women.-Participated in gay orgies.-Drug Addict and Cocain Abuser.-Paid prostitutes for sex.-Drunkard alcoholic.
Why the HELL does the United States have a national holiday in honor of him? pic.twitter.com/Nie0Z9ThZc
— Evan Kilgore (@EvanAKilgore) January 19, 2026
Ah man, that can’t be true, can it?
Well again, the claims come directly from unsealed FBI files.
Take a look:
Again, Grok adds these details:
The FBI records related to Martin Luther King Jr. were partially unsealed and released by the National Archives on July 21, 2025, under an executive order from the Trump administration. This release included over 243,000 pages primarily focused on the investigation into King’s assassination (codenamed MURKIN), along with some surveillance documents from the FBI’s broader monitoring of him during the 1960s. However, the full audio tapes from wiretaps and bugs— which form the basis for many of the allegations in the 1968 memos you referenced—remain sealed by court order until 2027. These tapes have not been released or publicly verified.
The claims in the X post (e.g., extramarital affairs, involvement in group sex with prostitutes, and excessive drinking) originate from FBI summaries and memos that were already declassified in prior releases (such as those in 2017–2019 under the JFK Records Act or through Freedom of Information Act requests). Historians like David Garrow have cited these summaries to document King’s extramarital affairs, which are considered well-substantiated by multiple sources, including FBI informant reports and partial transcripts. However, more sensational allegations (such as participation in or encouragement of non-consensual acts) are based on handwritten annotations in FBI documents and have been met with skepticism by experts, who note the FBI’s bias under J. Edgar Hoover to discredit King through disinformation and unverified claims. No primary audio evidence has been released to independently verify these specifics, and King’s family along with organizations like the SCLC have disputed their accuracy, arguing they reflect Hoover’s smear campaign rather than facts.
The 2025 release did not introduce new bombshell evidence confirming or debunking these claims as “true.” Instead, it largely reaffirmed the known extent of FBI surveillance, including efforts to gather dirt on King’s personal life to undermine his civil rights work. Scholars reviewing the documents (e.g., at Stanford’s King Institute) have noted no major surprises regarding his private conduct beyond what’s already public, and some records remain redacted for privacy or national security reasons.
On this one, I will push back a little bit because while FBI files seem at first glance to be a solid source, that would be an old way of thinking.
We used to think the FBI was pristine.
Now?
After all we’ve seen and learned over the last ten years, I take the FBI as a questionable source.
So for this one I rate: UNPROVEN.
Last, I want to end with this clip from Curtis Yarvin on the PBD Podcast last week.
Yarvin makes the claim that not only was MLK Jr. not this choirboy pastor we have been led to believe, but he claims the historical evidence is quite clear he was just a front for pushing communism into the USA.
He makes a strong case.
Watch here:
TRANSCRIPT:
Speaker 1:
Stanley Levison was, um—until 1956—uh, I think he was not, it was not an official title, but he was basically the CFO of the Communist Party USA. Um, he kind of ran its financial operations. And in ’56—or ’55 really—he realizes that the writing is on the wall for being a minion of Stalin.
It’s like McCarthyism has happened. It’s like, you know, Hungary has happened. Like it’s just not—it’s not, it’s not the vibe, it’s not the thing. So, uh, Levison does this interesting thing where he decides to revive a cause of the Communist Party from the 1930s.
And he finds a Black minister with a somewhat dodgy, uh, PhD and creates a movement and an organization and writes all of his speeches and manages his—stop it—whole organization. Absolutely. This organization is called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Uh, the preacher is Martin Luther King.
And the funniest thing—uh, here’s a fun thing that you can do with Wikipedia. If you go to, you know, Stanley Levison’s page, you will see that it says that Stanley Levison was influential in creating the SCLC.
Go to the SCLC’s page—nothing. No mention. Nothing. He’s not on the page. He’s not on the page. Um, and, and, and so like this is the—Levison was instrumental in all the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization established by Dr. King and other southern Black preachers to further the cause of civil rights.
He had initially—it’s true—been introduced—go to the SCLC page. Go to the SLC—SC—SC—uh, search for Levison. Why not? Man, you know, like, uh, you’ve seen The Truman Show, you’re like, “Why does that car come around every, every hour?” You know?
Speaker 2:
Like—so what, what does this mean to a, to a, to a guy like you? How do you process this information?
Speaker 1:
So, uh, it makes complete sense. What—did they use, did they use MLK to—it’s li—it’s no. It’s just that it’s like, you know, when you see an organization, uh, you know, government or non-government, you know, you can never be sure that it is what it says it is.
And so, you know, basically for, um, you know, uh, even now, like, it’s like we accept all these sort of lies without question. We see a politician reading a speech and we’re like, “Well, we didn’t know, he, he, he didn’t really write that speech. Maybe helped edit it a little bit. Maybe he marked it up, but he’s reading someone else’s speech.”
You know, that—
Speaker 2:
You’re saying I Have a Dream was written by him?
Speaker 1:
No, no, no. He didn’t write his own speeches. This is common. This is well-known history. Uh—so I Have a Dreamspeech wasn’t written by Ma—Martin Luther King?
No, he didn’t write his own speeches. He might have written Letter from a Birmingham Jail because he was actually in the Birmingham jail, but I’m not, you know, completely confident of that.
If he wrote Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he was plagiarizing his own speechwriters. Um, you know, and—
Speaker 2:
And he—Stanley was one of the speechwriters?
Speaker 1:
Yes. Go, go back on the, on the previous—uh—go, go back one page on the—oh, right there. Martin Luther I Have a Dream speech, but it was a collaborative effort on key contributions from his lawyer and speechwriters Clarence B. Jones, businessman Stanley Levison.
Businessman Stanley Levison. Yeah, businessman—businessman Stanley—not communist—and other advisors who drafted, provided input, and came from some—I think Jones is also a communist.
You know, uh, I mean, it’s, it’s like—
Speaker 2:
Clarence is also a communist?
Speaker 1:
But he—well, you know, I, I do—I don’t know that for a fact. I’m definitely guessing. I just want to read you one more thing because, uh, while you were speaking, I read this one part.
Go back on the previous page. Go to the RFK side. It’s like five sentences from the bottom. Uh, in 1963, following the revelation of Dr. King’s circle that Attorney General Bobby Kennedy—R.F. Kennedy—and then John F. Kennedy had pressured Dr. King in person to break with Levison and Jack O’Dell—but Levison—also a communist.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
But Levison—Levison continued to advise Dr. King privately until Dr. King’s assassination in April of ’68. And afterwards, Levison continued to work with Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, the Poor People’s Campaign in DC that took place from May 12th to—uh—of course, he’s actually the CEO, right? You know?
And, and like he’s actually the CEO. Right? And—so MLK’s communist ties to Levison? Yeah. Uh, but it was, you know—the thing is, if you pull back to the bigger picture, basically even the term civil rights.
So basically what you had was in the ’30s with cases like, for example, the Scottsboro Boys, which were—was George Floyd in the 1930s, you know—you had this, um, basically Black nationalism and Black liberation, huge, huge cause of the, uh, Communist Party in the ’20s and ’30s.
If you look up the phrase, uh, self-determination in the Black Belt, for example, that’s a 1920s-era communist slogan. And they actually imagined having Black SSRs in like Alabama—like Soviet—so actually parts of the Soviet Union.
Um, and, and, and like, you know, because the Soviet Union was intended to be a world government, of course, right? You know? And it wasn’t Russian. It was started in Russia. Um, and, um, you know, not really by Russians either, right?
And so you have all of these things that are basically, you know, 20th-century stories, which when you look at them with a 21st-century historical view and you’re trying to find the reality rather than the narrative, you basically see that the reality is like very, very different from the narrative.
It’s like FDR being in a wheelchair. So what Levison was doing was simply basically taking, um, a Communist Party initiative from the ’20s and ’30s and laundering it as what we now call the Civil Rights Movement.
Backup here if needed:
MLK Jr. was nothing more than a frontman to push communism into the USA? pic.twitter.com/3knYEAZNLw
— Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 19, 2026
Wow.
So sad to hear, I hope most of this is not true, but there is a lot of smoke here.
Your thoughts?
Maybe that’s why they did him dirty with this statue?
DISRESPECTFUL: The New MLK “Embrace” Statue Dishonors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
EDITOR'S NOTE: On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I wanted to look back at the wildly disrespectful statue they erected in his honor back in 2023.
Oh my...how disrespectful!
Look, this is one of those articles I'm not going to tell you what I think, I'm just going to show you what a lot of other people think and show you pictures and video for yourself and let YOU decide.
Let's start off with the background.
A giant bronze statue was commissioned in Boston to honor the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nice, right?
Unfortunately, sometimes things sound better on paper than they do when finished.
The idea for the statue was to honor this famous photo:
The #MLK Embrace statue in Boston was inspired by this famous photo.
Did it miss the mark? pic.twitter.com/cb2bg5ohhV
— Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023
https://twitter.com/Nikki_T/status/1614083344433561601
Unfortunately, they decided to cut off the heads and the result is, well, you decide...
#MLK Embrace Statue unveiled in Boston...
Why does it look like a giant _____? pic.twitter.com/RCOd4nElch
— Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023
When it's being described as "veiny" that's when I think you've got some problems:
New "Embrace" MLK statue in Boston. The rear view looks kinda veiny. pic.twitter.com/IsXSFcWP8w
— Troy (@EnolaEmanon) January 12, 2023
Now, it could just be a bad angle, so let's watch the full video:
Video of the Embrace MLK statue in Boston...
Is there any angle where this does not look pornographic? pic.twitter.com/Xn3wDwxR3x
— Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023
Yikes, not much better....
I feel like we definitely need to tune in and get a "not White person" opinion here for full and balanced reporting:
https://twitter.com/rasheednwalters/status/1613932445262282753
This is probably the most favorable angle:
“The Embrace” statue on the Boston Common. A memorial to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King. pic.twitter.com/xYYBhzhCvR
— Malcolm Johnson NBC10 Boston (@MalNBCBoston) January 14, 2023
Oh my:
This is the worst piece of public art I have ever seen.Search "The Embrace" statue and see the various angles of this headless tribute to MLK Jr. & Coretta Scott King. It's .. so bad. https://t.co/D6OWCVbfo2
— Polly St. George (formerly Amazing Polly) (@FringeViews) January 14, 2023
Is it pornographic?
Opinions seem to vary depending on the angle you look at.
It's either a giant rooster or a person's head between two legs.
Either way, I think the quote from above was "aesthetically unpleasant":
What is this?The EMBRACE? Why not a statue of MLK Jr. and Coretta standing? Does this look pornographic to anyone else? #Boston Did you approve this? #statues #art https://t.co/VZIF1LO8Gl
— TheXFactor (@DeborahTaylor01) January 14, 2023
Giant turd?
A statue(of a giant turd?) has been unveiled in Boston.The sculptural composition is called "Embrace".
In fact, it is dedicated to Martin Luther King .Although, at first glance (and all subsequent glances) you can’t really say so.. pic.twitter.com/nFui24IBtY
— Spartackus (@elskorpione) January 14, 2023
It's a giant something...
Cutting off the heads seems to have been a poor choice:
I know Boston's new #MLK statue is being unveiled today (which is fantastic!) but I can't shake the feeling that this view of "The Embrace" sculpture from this angle looks like two disembodied arms & hands hugging a butt. #bospoli #MLKDay pic.twitter.com/jswBHB3Eb5
— Chip Goines (@chipgoines) January 13, 2023
Others have pointed out it has the Masonic "G" from the view above:
“The Embrace” is a Masonic statue. You can see the G from the aerial rendering. This isn’t about MLK. Open your pic.twitter.com/CKxVTreEFr
— Three Hawks (@ThreeHawks5) January 14, 2023
From Fox News:
The four intertwined arms were inspired by a photo of the civil rights leader and his wife when they learned he had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. https://t.co/tG5dm2jlKT
— FOX 35 Orlando (@fox35orlando) January 14, 2023
Fox35 reports:
Annual tributes and commemorations of the life and legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. began nationwide Friday and included the unveiling of a statue in Boston.
The 20-foot-high bronze sculpture called "The Embrace" is said to be one of the country’s largest memorials dedicated to racial equity.
When looking at the sculpture, you’ll see four intertwined arms — inspired by a photo of the civil rights leader and his wife, Coretta Scott King, when they learned he had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.
King first met his wife in Boston in the early 1950s, when he was a doctoral student in theology at Boston University and she was studying at the New England Conservatory of Music.
"My parents’ time in Boston is often a forgotten part of their history – and the history of the movement they helped inspire," said Martin Luther King, III in a press release. "The Embrace is a commemoration of their relationship and journey and represents the meaningful role Boston served in our history."
So sad that this will be the legacy:
https://twitter.com/Historic_Crypto/status/1614292378998767618
Describe what YOU see first in the comments below:
I feel like if this Embrace statue were a Rorschach test, i would fail miserably. pic.twitter.com/DyFJP3zVrX
— Joey Eastman (@TheJoeyEastman) January 13, 2023
Here's what Grok thinks of it:
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
