Rev. Father A. Maximiadis
This article was written with the express purpose of calling into question Chris Butler’s assumption: “Jesus Christ was directly and indirectly teaching the reality of reincarnation … [and] that there is a very great possibility he did teach more in-depth signs in Bhakti-yoga, the signs of Ashtanga yoga for that matter, for the Kundalini-yoga even, Mystic-yoga” (ss.). Chris Butler’s discourse has been transcribed from www.cultofbutler.com website, prior to its forced closure, ensuing from matters heard at the Victorian Supreme Court in Melbourne Australia, and publish on this site accompanied with my confutations, with evidential supports from Biblical sources et al., to disprove the veracity of his assumptions.
“Everything that Jesus Christ taught … that can be actually be contained in thirty pages, you tell me, is that possible, that he engages in activities and gave the amount of instructions to the equivalent of … to … one of my two-hour lecture … and that was his whole ministry … who can believe that! Therefore, we can conclude, that the information that is contained in what we call the New Testament is extremely limited, partial, it’s not anywhere near everything that Jesus Christ, huh, taught or did. And also in the New Testament itself you’ll find that everything … huh … all the teachings of the Lord are not contained in this book. So, we’ll just leave it there, because … we do not know what Jesus taught that is not in there and I’m not going to engage in speculation … which many people try to do they try to speculate, “Well, we think Jesus taught this, we think that Jesus taught that” We’re not going to bother with that, all we know is that, huh, there is a very great possibility that he did teach more in-depth signs in Bhakti-yoga, the signs of Ashtanga-yoga for that matter, for the Kundalini-yoga even, Mystic-yoga, we don’t know, we can speculate all we want, and the teachings of reincarnation. Now, let’s just … huh … look at a few things that … huh … was said to Jesus Christ that are contained in this small little book and … huh … which will help us appreciate … huh … that Jesus Christ was directly and indirectly teaching the reality of reincarnation”(sic.).
Firstly, Butler asks: “… is that possible … that everything that Jesus taught, his activities and instructions, can be contained in thirty pages?” I’m bemused as to the particular “thirty pages” in which Jesus’ teachings and works are, according to Butler, supposedly contained, and his temerity in comparing the equivalent “amount” of Jesus’ “instructions” to one of his “two hour lecture(s)”. [brackets mine].
Chris Butler’s attention focuses on the unknown factors, i.e., the commonly designated ‘silent years,’ of Jesus’ “activities,” “instructions,” and ‘teachings,’ rather than the known factors; in the Gospel material. He diminishes the contents that are contained in the Gospels by depicting them as “…extremely limited, partial,” and had the audacity to demand additional information. A transparent ploy to capitalize on the Gospel quietude, of the so-called ‘silent years,’ in which to interpolate his version of Hindu beliefs and doctrines into Christianity. He then makes a sweeping generalization suggesting that “many people” (presumably Christians) not having the intellectual capacity, or aptitude, to provide an explanatory understanding of Jesus’ teachings, and he quotes them as saying: “Well, we think Jesus taught this, we think that Jesus taught that,” without observance of the literary convention on providing a reference.
Chris Butler’s blasphemous and anti-Christian obsession have been disclosed [vid., articles: ‘Chris Butler: “God likes to sit there and throw people in the fire” (sic.), and ‘Chris Butler’s Relentless Anti-Christian Campaign’] which are his only credentials for teachings, Christians, what he assumes Jesus “taught”. He has demonstrated, in his numerous lectures and publications, his incessant anti-Christian fixation, he will not, or can’t, leave Christians alone. He is a soi-disant authority on Christians absent of any rationale. He glibly refers to Jesus’ 2,100 million followers as “so-called Christians” q.e. 33% of the population of the major world religions (vid., Brodd, J. ‘World Religions’ 2003 (student text). St. Mary’s Press, Winona, MN)). Would he have also considered Jesus’ Apostles, and the Fathers of the Patristic Age (1st to 8th cent (q.v.)), and the 2,565 canonized Saints (‘Butler’s Lives of the Saints’, H. Thurston, S.J., D. Attwater. rev. ed. vol. 1, P.v.) as “so-called Christians”? Does he affix his “so-called” label on those of the other world faiths? e.g., “so-called Buddhists”, “so-called Muslims”, “so-called Hindus” or even “so-called Krsna devotees”, or is this label reserved solely for Christians?
An evaluation of the amount of content in the Gospels would reveal that the immensity of “everything” that Jesus taught and did, could not, notwithstanding Butler’s claim: “…be actually … contained in [either his] “thirty pages” or “two hour lecture” [brackets mine]. Furthermore, his proposition verges on the preposterous even if only considering the five most conspicuous stages of Jesus’ life, viz., His Nativity (Matt. 1:18-25) 11-9 BC, His encounter with John the Baptist (Lk. 3:21,22) in the Jordan valley; in year 19 or 21 (q.v.). His 2-year + (q.v.) Ministry which had begun prior to the 46th year of the Herodian Temple in 26AD (Jn. 2:20. cf. ibid. 1:29,35,43, 2:1,12, and Mk.1:13), His Crucifixion (Matt. 27:33-37. Mk. 15:22-26. Lk. 23:33,34. Jn. 19:17b-27); in April 33, and His Resurrection 3-days later (Mat. 28:1-8, Mk. 16:1-6, Lk. 24:1-12, Jn. 20:1-13). Butler’s estimation of the contents of the Gospels as “… extremely limited, (and) partial” [brackets mine] pales into insignificance when firstly considering Jesus’ 32 Parables (17 references in Matthew, 5 in Mark, and 19 in Luke). Secondly, the 9 Nature Miracles (6 references in Matthew, 5 in Mark, 3 in Luke, and 4 in John). Thirdly, the 26 Healing Miracles (14 references in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 17 in Luke, and 5 in John). Fourthly, Jesus’ 10 (q.v.) Sermons (3 references in Matthew, 1 in Mark, 3 in Luke, and 4 in John), and fifthly, the 3 Olivet Discourses (Matthew, 24:4-25:46, Mark 13:3-37; and Luke 21:7-36).
Butler flippantly refers to the Gospels as a “small little book” (sic), and audaciously questions the veracity of its contents by saying, “Who can believe that!” Who can indeed! Certainly not one incapable of understanding the Gospels, their spiritual insights, psychological and social needs; for which they were written. The un-schooled Butler, Hare Krishna renegade, non-Christian, and polytheist teaching Christians (monotheists) is ludicrous; beyond ridiculous! Butler in not genetically and culturally Indian, and dressing in Indian style clothes and stylizing himself as a Guru will not change that. Precisely, from whom, and where, did he obtained his authority to harangue Christians? From a burning bush at Mount Sinai? or during an ‘epiphany’ on the Damascus Road? From the Apostolic Succession of the historic Church? From within one of the Protestant traditions? Does Butler have the intellectual capacity to emulate his “Jagud Guru” namesake? And the fortitude and moral authority to ‘teach’ and pass judgement on Christians?
“ó ουν διδασκων ετερον σεαυτον ου διδασκεις; ο κηρυσσων μη κλεπτειν κλεπτεις; ο λεγων μη μοιχευειν μοιχευεις; ο βδελυσσομενος τα ειδωλα ιεροσυλεις; ος νομω καυχασαι, δια της παραβασεως του νομου τον θεον ατιμαζεις το γαρ ονομα του θεου δι υμας βλασφημειται εν τοις εθνεσιν, καθως γεγραπται.
Προς Ρωμαιους. 2:21-24.
You, therefore, who teach another, do you not not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.
Romans 2:21-24. NKJV.
Butler surreptitiously teaches polytheistic beliefs with its manifold variety of deities, e.g., Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva (et alii), and an admixture of destructive heresies under the guise of Christian monotheism.
“Εγενοντο δε και ψευδοπροφηται εν τω λαω, ως και εν υμιν εσονται ψευδοδασκαλοι, οιτινες παρεισαξουσιν αιρεσεις απωλειας και τον αγορασαντα αυτους δεσποτην αρνουμενοι. επαγοντες εαυτοις ταχινην απωλειαν, και πολλοι εξακολουθησουσιν αυτων ταις ασελγειαις δι ους η οδος της αληθειας βλασφημηθησεται, και εν πλεονεξια πλαστοις λογοις υμας εμπορευσονται, οις το κριμα εκπαλαι ουκ αργει και η απωλεια αυτων ου νυσταζει”.
Πετρου Β, 2:1-3.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who brought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom; the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber”.
2 Peter, 2:1-3 NKJV.
Chris Butler’s discourses, and writings, for the most part, are superficial, erratic, and are absent of any logical or rational consistency; or even the most fundamental principals of the historic method. His teachings are perplexing, absent of even the most basics of any of the various sub-disciplines of Christian theology, e.g., a soteriological understanding of Jesus’ universal ‘saving work’, or any of the eschatological elements in Jesus’ thirty-two Parables. Furthermore, his pseudo-exegesis of the Gospels are naïve and totally irrelevant to both Jesus’ ‘words’ and ‘works’. And finally, he exhibits a transparent ignorance of ecclesiasticism, the Apostolic tradition; and the theological significance of Christian dogma. His teachings are puerilely stylized to appeal principally, to an unwary readership and audience. He endeavours to Hinduize Jesus Christ Himself and the Gospels; will Muhammad and the Qur’an be next?
Butler promotes his own individualized form of Orientalism. Utilizing abbreviated select elements extrapolated from the various religious systems, viz., Hinduism Sanatana Dharma (4,000BC q.v.) from the Indian sub-continent, Buddhism Buddha-Dhamma (400BC) from Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, et alibi. These religions – or rather ethical movements to be precise – include ‘reincarnation’ (‘metempsychosis’), ‘worship of a variety of gods’ (‘polytheism’) and the bonds of ‘karma’ [Karma is associated with the belief of ‘reincarnation’, an Oriental notion to explain inequalities of life]. This is not a Christian doctrine. The concept of karma is unique to Hinduism, and Buddhism, and has been rejected by Judaeo-Christian and Islamic scholars [vid., St. Augustine “De Moribus Manichaeorum”, et al.]. Butler has, since the late seventies, retained his incessant mingling of selected elements of these two world faiths, which by detailed analysis, their antithetical constituent parts belong to neither (na iti, na iti), but clearly belong in a theological and doctrinal no man’s land. When will Butler cease courting Christians while berating them from behind a veneer of Christian piety.
The migration of one religion – its beliefs, teachings, dogmas and traditions – into another, might, in Butler’s naïve opinion, and in the view of an unwary audience or readership, seem plausible by the strength of a few generalized comparative parallels. However, students of comparative cultural traditions of various socio-ethnological groups, and their constituent theological and philosophical belief systems would recognize the intellectual inflexibilities of encumbered parallels. For example, Hinduism’s polytheism with its manifold variety of deities, e.g., Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, et alii., and Christian monotheism, a belief in one personal and transcendent God.
Hinduism has an hereditary caste system (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra), that supports the divisions of social grades including the pariahs (Harijan), which, although outlawed under the Indian Offenses Act (1955), still persists today. There are the complex issues concerning attitudinal changes of family life, sexual morality, and the role of women participating in the socio-political spheres of life. The Hindu division of the social strata system has no parallel with the egalitarianism of Christianity (Matthew 7:1-12). These, amongst others, are the parallels, of which, Butler remains silent in his openly aggressive proselytizing activities. His discourses, and booklets, are void of even the faintest understanding of the unique Christian characteristics, absent in Hinduism, and the other world faiths, e.g., the concept of the Deity and human identity, and the foremost status of Christian ethics. Formal attempts at bridging the gap between Christianity and Hinduism, following the Second Vatican Council (Session II, 17 May 1964, or, Session IV, 28 October 1965), were unsuccessful, partly due to the conservativeness of Hindu culture (vide., History of the Christian Church, H. Jedin, edit. Vol. X, 1981. p. 768). Notwithstanding Butler’s fanciful rhetoric, the stark reality is: Hinduism and Christianity are entirely apart. The Judaeo-Christian God is monotheistic, exclusivistic, and will ‘have no other gods before Him’ (v.i.). The Decalogue is quite clear, it allows no ‘other gods’, whether it be the gods of Israel’s Near Eastern neighbours (Ashtaroth (I Chr. 11:44), Baal-Berith (Judg. 9:4), et cetera )); or the gods of the Indian subcontinent (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, et alii.).
“ουκ εσονται σοι θεοι ετεροι πλην εμου”.
Εξοδος, 20:3. LXX [βλεπω 34:14]
“You shall have no other gods before me”.
Exodus, 20:3. NKJV [vid. 34:14]
The narrative of God’s instruction, to Jacob, to clear the altar, first at the Shechem shrine, and later at Beth-el, are further unmistakable indications that polytheism and monotheism are, quite clearly, a contradiction in terms, and like oil and water, don’t mix.
“ειπεν δε Ιακωβ τω οικω αυτου και πασιν τοις μετ αυτου Αρατε τους θεους τους αλλοτριους τους μεθ υμων εκ μεσου υμων και καθαρισασθε και αλλαξατε τας στολας υμων.
Γενεσις, 35:2. LXX
So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments”.
Genesis 35:2 NKJV.
Evidently, Butler has not sought serious Christian replies to his questions, from the vast Christian literary resources, or from any of the Christian clergy, but rather quotes Christians; absent of any reference. Apparently he is unaware that Christians from their early catechetical education are taught of the 18 (or 19) so-called ‘silent years’ between the event of the Lost Boy Jesus (age 11 or 12) at the Temple in the year 1 or 2 (q.v.), (Luke 2:41-52), and His Baptism (age 30 or 33) in year 19 or 21 (q.v.) (Luke 3:21,22). These particular 18-years are not as ‘silent,’ as popularly supposed, when considering the historical factors regarding Jesus’s background, which would have influenced the spiritual, and psychological growth that moulded the character and personality of Jesus. For example, Palestine, in Jesus’ time, was under the rule of the Imperator, and Princeps, Caesar Augustus (Octavian) 27BC-14AD, and Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus 14-37AD. Rome maintained a repressive form of government (vid. Mark 13:5-6, Acts 5:36-37) accompanied with an excessive taxation system, which suppressed any hope of future economic growth. There existed a sensitive political and religious ambience which included: Judaism (elect people of the ‘Torah’ and monotheism), Sadducees (who maintained the status quo. (vid. John 11:50)), Pharisees (who believed in bridging the Torah with contemporary society), Essenes, an ascetic order (perhaps related to the Qumran sectarians) who were situated at Qumran from c. 200BC – c. 200AD, and the antithetical Zealots (a nucleus of fanatical revolutionaries who, from the time of Pompey onward to the conclusion of Great War (67-70AD), sought to overthrow the Roman occupation)), the Grand Sanhedrin (formerly gerousia, was the ecclesiastical Star Chamber, under the control of Rome to maintain the Pax Romana in the Transjordan).
Notwithstanding these difficult (and at times volatile) circumstances, the continuity and maintenance of established family ties, clans, tribes were maintained. There was also a continuation of traditional social customs, secular and religious education (throughout the Synagogal network) and observances of the Pesach and Bar Mitzvah. These were the historical circumstances, in Jesus day, from which we can extrapolate to understand those not so “silent years”. They were the religious and political constituent elements that formed the social fabric – the known historical data – in which Jesus’ pre-conditioned psychological and spiritual reflexes were formed. This is ample information for which to rationalize the eighteen not so “silent years,” but more importantly we have the ‘known’ accounts of Jesus’ ‘words,’ and ‘works’ as recorded in the Gospel material without having to delve into those 18-years. The historical data speaks for itself without Butler’s fanciful pseudo-Hindu embellishments. Christians have spoken for themselves, for almost 2000-years, without intrusive unschooled assumptions interpolating the Gospels. If those “silent years” were of paramount importance to Jesus’ ‘works’ and ‘words,’ His Apostles would have recorded them in the New Testament material. Butler may write, or say, any fanciful things he wishes, as he has done many a time, but they will be based solely upon unadulterated conjecture.
Even abstracted listeners to Butler’s lectures would be conscious of him not being au fait with the New Testament contents, the culture, the political and social atmosphere of Caesar’s world. He misquotes Jesus (‘Understanding Karma’ 1995, p.6), provides no evidential supports to his lectures or writings. He has no respect for the canon of Sacred Scripture or studied it in its original language; Koine Greek. His description of the Holy Bible as a mere “small little book” would give offence to many Christians. He attempts to disparage, and scale down the New Testament, to comply with his pseudo-Hindu assumptions, as the heretical Marcion tried to do to the Torah in ca. 150. Would he describe the sacred Hindu writings, e.g., the Rig Veda, or the Bhagavad-Gïtã; as a mere “small little book”?
Butler suggests: “… all the teachings of the Lord are not contained in this book. So, we’ll just leave it there, because … I’m not going to engage in speculation”. Butler uses the English language title “Lord”. When Christians use this title referring to Jesus (vid. Lk. 17:5-6a, Acts 9:10-11, 15, 17) they do so in their respect and expression of their Christian faith. When Butler uses this title, who is he referring to, ‘Lord Jesus Christ’, or ‘Lord Krsna’, or Brahman, et cetera. Whom does Butler serve, the monotheistic Supreme Power, and Source of all existence, as perceived in the Torah and Gospels, or the multifarious gods from the Vedic pantheon. The answer is self-evident in his vacillating stance between Hindusim and Christianity. He surreptitiously promotes polytheism under the guise of Christian monotheism; this is gross deception at its worst. The transparentness of Hindu polytheism is made evident by Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886): “There can really be as many Hindu Gods as there are devotees to suit the moods, feelings, emotions and social background of the devotees” (sic.). Butler’s stance suggests that loyalty can be fragmented to simultaneously serve under the polytheistic and monotheistic belief systems. Jesus, speaking to his disciples, near Capernaum, said something entirely different:
“Ουδεις δυναται δυσι κυριοις δουλευειν η γαρ τον ενα μισησει και τον ετερον αγαπησει, η ενος ανθεξεται και του ετερου καταφρονησει. ου δυνασθε θεω δουλευειν και μαμωνα.
Κατα Μαθθαιον, 6:24
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”.
Matt. 6:24 NKJV
Butler’s discourses and writings betray a staggering, unrestrained contempt for God whom he referred to as a “sadist[ic] … big dude” [brackets mine]; utterable only by enemies of God. This is sheer blasphemy, and ‘unforgivable’ (Matthew 12:31b), and a breach of the third Commandment, in the rabbinical, modern Greek, and Reformed Church traditions, and the second Commandment in the Roman Catholic, and Lutheran traditions. The subject matter of Butler’s discourse (see transcript above) is composed of fancifulness, and is totally rhetorical with not an ounce of substance, evidently an editorializing ploy to avoid providing sound theoretical basis, historical data; or evidental supports. Why would Christians need the un-schooled Butler, a Hare Krishna renegade and blasphemer when they have the Gospels backed by an almost 2000-year literary (and oral) teaching and tradition – firstly the Greek Orthodox Church followed by Roman Catholic Church – and more recently, the Protestant Churches (circa 14th and 17th cents). In conclusion; did Jesus Teach Reincarnation and Yoga? The very conspicuous absence of evidence provides the answer; an unequivocal ‘No’.