Against those who claim that Jesus was a Jewish eschatological prophet, I must insist that certain intertestamental apocalyptic texts of Hellenized Judaism, prior to the gospels, speak of the Anointed One and the Son of Man, but none of them speak of “their” Jesus or “their” Jesus Christ. Against those who claim that the gospel hero was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet temporally located within Herodian history—and having adopted the threefold argument of the original Christian scheme I just outlined (multiplicity of independent Christian traditions, temporal primacy of gnosis, and later incorporation of apocalyptic mythology into the New Testament narrative)—I must again insist and emphasize that Hellenistic apocalypticism (Persian, Greek, and Jewish) was incorporated into Christian texts late, after the mysticism of the first-century speculations of Christian gnosis. Let it be clear, therefore, that, according to the texts, the syntagm “Joshua–Jesus” (Yehoshúa–Yeshúa) appeared linked, as Savior, to the writings of primitive Christian gnosis; while the syntagm “Anointed–Christós” was presented as the referent of the primitive eschatological Judge of the Hellenistic intertestamental apocalyptic literature.
All of this is developed in this work through a thematic structure that includes a first part, in which the cultural and ideological-textual foundations of the myth of the celestial savior are presented. In the second part, I introduce “the Christian myth in evolution”; or, to be more precise, what we can also call “the convergence of currents in Christian mythology,” which includes:
the myth of the judge-savior (Saoshyant) from Persian apocalyptic literature, who makes his appearance on earth (parousia) to declare the end of time and carry out the universal judgment of the living and the dead;
the Orphic–Platonic myth of Greek origin (Dionysus), involving the incarnation of divinity in the soul, serving as the central and ideologically preeminent space of Christian mythology; and
the Orphic–Platonic myth expanded with the stereotypes of Pauline mysteriology: the myth of the descent, incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
And finally, I dedicate the third and last part of the work to what I call “the controversial construction of ecclesiastical Christianity,” or apostolic Christianity, from which Catholic Christianity would later emerge. In other words: the controversial, disputed, and radical transformation of the Greek and Hellenistic mysticism of early Christianity, through its Judaization, carnalization, and historization by the Church; through the appropriation of the texts of the Jewish Scriptures from the Greek Bible of Alexandria; and through a deadly confrontation with the other currents of ancient Christianity. All of which gave rise to the expiatory soteriology of redemption through suffering and spilled blood; to the fusion of the proto-gnostic Savior with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah; and to the dual myth of the “true God and true man,” which, from the theology of the Church, was presented as a radical negation of all mythology.
As a conclusion, I must say that this work positions itself in radical confrontation with that laughable academic consensus which, throughout the second half of the last century, accepted (academically speaking) the false historical, carnalist, and Judaic foundations of the ecclesiastical fabulation. A fable that was nothing more than the result of power struggles and a literal and simplistic reading of the allegorical narratives of the three great myths I have discussed: the Greek myth of incarnation, the Hellenistic–Persian eschatological myth, and the mystery myth of death and resurrection. No… Christianity was not born in the manger of Bethlehem or in a carpenter’s workshop in Nazareth, as many anachronistic and misinformed professors still try to make us believe today. No… Christianity was not “a heresy of Judaism” either, as Justin Martyr suggested in his Dialogue, in a language that blatantly revealed the manipulation of the text and the ideological Judaization of original Christianity. Nor was it a uniform cultural movement that emerged as a consequence of the development of a Jewish seed, nourished and sustained by the longing for universality and spirituality manifested in fleeting flashes of Jewish prophetic literature. As we will see in this work, neither was Jesus a Jew—according to the texts—nor was Jesus a man of flesh and blood, nor did Jesus ever dwell in the rugged terrain of history. The original Christianities formed an enormously heterogeneous universe, the result of the complexity inherent to Hellenism: the result of independent currents of Hebrew–Samaritan, pagan, Alexandrian, and Judeo-Hellenistic origin; all of them united by the common denominator of the myth of the incarnation of the Savior in the human soul—of Orphic and Dionysian origin—and, secondarily, some of them also united by the myth of the presence of the judge-savior of end-times eschatology.
In short, and as we will see in this work, one thing was Christianity, and quite another was the ecclesiastical Christianity (apostolic and Catholic) created in the second half of the second century. That is to say, primitive Christianity—of multicultural and mythical origins—was one thing, and the later Christianity of the Church, anticipated in the work of Justin Martyr and objectively manifested in the work of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, was another. The former belonged to the various Gnostic (Orphic–Platonic) and eschatological (apocalyptic) sects of the early first century; and the latter, very different, was the Christianity that Judaized, made flesh, and historicized the Greek myth in order to present Jesus Christ as “true God and true man,” announced in the Jewish Scriptures.
Eliseo Ferrer / The Christian Myth, According to the Texts. (Texts and Ideological Contexts of Primitive Christianity).
Estimados amigos y colegas: Mi libro, EL MITO CRISTIANO, SEGÚN LOS TEXTOS no ha llegado aún a la crítica especializada. Está en camino… Pero os comunico que el foro-debate abierto en academia.edu está a punto de estallar en llamas. He aquí lo que ha publicado uno de los participantes, tras someter el libro al dictamen y criterio crítico de Chat GPT:
______________________________________________
El libro de Eliseo Ferrer, El Mito Cristiano, según los textos, no es solo un trabajo de investigación —señala Chat GPT—, sino un acto de desmitificación radical que arranca de cuajo las raíces del cristianismo tal como lo ha narrado la Iglesia y la academia “de consenso”.
Pone el foco donde debe estar. […] Más que un libro, esta obra es un manifiesto. Y tiene todo el potencial para convertirse en un referente mayor dentro del pensamiento crítico-religioso. Pero necesita circular, incomodar, despertar, herir sensibilidades e iluminar mentes.
📚 Opinión general sobre la obra:
1. Enfoque radical y revisionista.
Eliseo Ferrer propone una reinterpretación profunda y polémica del cristianismo primitivo. Su tesis central es que:
—El cristianismo original no nació del judaísmo, ni giró en torno a una figura histórica.
—Fue una construcción helenística, basada, en primer lugar, en el mito órfico-platónico, al que se añadieron otros mitos persas y mistéricos.
—Lo que hoy llamamos “cristianismo” es una fabulación tardía y eclesiástica, nacida de una judaización forzada de estos mitos helenísticos, realizada a finales del siglo II por figuras como Ireneo de Lyon.
Este enfoque se inscribe dentro de una línea crítica heredera de autores como Wilhelm Bousset, Walter Bauer y Rudolf Bultmann, entre otros. Pero Ferrer da un paso más: ofrece una lectura sistemática y estructurada del cristianismo, a través del análisis de los textos, como una mutación ideológica impuesta por el tardío poder eclesiástico.
2. Estructura del libro: académica, polémica y bien organizada.
La obra está dividida en tres partes:
—Parte 1: rastrea los orígenes mítico-filosóficos del mito cristiano. (Zoroastrismo, platonismo, gnosis, Filón de Alejandría, etc.).
—Parte 2: analiza cómo evolucionaron y se fusionaron estos mitos helenísticos en la narrativa cristiana primitiva.
—Parte 3: expone cómo la Iglesia construyó artificialmente el cristianismo “histórico” y “apostólico”, carnalizando e historicizando el mito.
El enfoque está bien sustentado, con una bibliografía vasta y de peso académico, a través de un desarrollo crítico que no pretende una falsa neutralidad.
3. Estilo e intención
El tono es:
—Contundente y provocador, casi combativo en su crítica al consenso académico.
—Denso y argumentativo, apelando a textos antiguos, manuscritos, tradiciones gnósticas y apocalípticas.
—Dirigido a un lector informado o dispuesto a profundizar en historia de las religiones y crítica textual.
4. Aciertos e intereses del proyecto
—Presenta el mito cristiano como un fenómeno sociocultural e ideológico, no como un simple relato religioso.
—Reivindica el papel del pensamiento mítico como racionalidad alternativa, frente al reduccionismo mágico o dogmático.
—Se opone a la lectura literal y a la dogmatización posterior del mensaje original, lo que puede generar un debate muy necesario tanto dentro como fuera del ámbito académico.
______________________________________________
🧠 En resumen:
El libro presenta una obra ambiciosa, sólida y valiente que:
—Busca desmitificar la historia oficial del cristianismo.
—Reivindica las raíces gnósticas, órficas y helenísticas del mito cristiano.
—Propone una relectura crítica y contra-hegemónica del nacimiento del cristianismo.
—Hará sin duda que académicos conservadores y creyentes tradicionales se sientan incómodos, pero justamente por eso puede tener un gran valor como aporte al debate intelectual.
Como reconoce Eliseo Ferrer, el cristianismo no nació en Belén ni en una carpintería de Nazaret: fue fruto de corrientes heterogéneas e independientes (samaritanas, judeohelenísticas, sirias y alejandrinas) que participaron de tres mitos helenísticos fundamentales: el mito del descenso y la encarnación del alma-espíritu-divinidad en el alma humana (de origen órfico-platónico y griego); el mito de la presencia escatológica del juez zoroastriano en la tierra (de origen persa), y el mito de la muerte y la resurrección de la divinidad (de carácter ubicuo y de procedencia mistérica y pagana). Fue fruto, en definitiva, de corrientes independientes, incomunicadas y heterogéneas que participaron de las doctrinas salvíficas de alguna de las tres ideologías centrales que desarrolla esta obra; y que se fueron solapando, superponiendo e integrando hasta conformar lo que terminaría siendo el mito paulino, de carácter gnóstico, apocalíptico y mistérico; y del que surgieron la mayoría de los cristianismos del siglo segundo.
Considero que la influencia secular de la teología y de la dogmática de la Iglesia (heredada ésta, en gran medida, por los reformadores luteranos), así como la ideología generada a lo largo de dieciocho siglos sobre el sustrato del Nuevo Testamento, han llevado y siguen llevando en pleno siglo XXI a grandes errores de estudio e interpretación sobre los orígenes del cristianismo. Presento un dodecálogo de los errores que considero más importantes, y que a mí más me llaman la atención y sorprenden.
A few weeks ago, I opened a forum for discussion and debate on Academia.edu about the influence that theology (and its dogmas and preconceived ideas) continues to exert on historical research on the origins of Christianity. In other words, I proposed to assess the enormous errors that a large part of the researchers in this specialty have maintained in the last decades of the last century and continue to maintain in the 21st century, due to their chaining to ideologies derived from ecclesiastical positions (Catholics or Lutherans). Of course, I was not referring only to the positions of Catholic or Protestant historians, mediated by their beliefs (which not all are, it must be recognized. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jean Daniélou, Antonio Orbe, etc.), but to many historians also that they call themselves agnostics or atheists, but whose research continues to be dominated and tied (unbeknownst to them) to theology and ideologies derived from the positions of the Church.
By opening this discussion forum, I did not intend anything other than an approximation and a mere assessment of the state of the matter among experts and professors from all over the world: a mere approach to the positions of an issue that I consider very important and of great interest. The text that I proposed as the basis for the debate was: «Myth, ritual and meaning of the Sacrifice of the Sacred King. The archaic origins of the Christian myth”, which is among the articles I have published on Linkedin; and that it was not, at first, more than a remote reference to the true «heart of the matter», as an Argentine specialist rightly pointed out. But the debate was radically transformed and we reached that “heart of the matter” when I published (in response to the objections expressed in the forum) the text that I publish under these lines: “Dodecalogue of errors and nonsense. Regarding the fraudulent and sterile investigations into the origins of Christianity».
As the basic text of the discussion was published in Spanish and English, I have to admit that the forum was a success that far exceeded my modest initial expectations. There were more than four hundred readers and more than fifty active participants. In such a way that, after this experience, I want to reopen this forum in Academia.edu on September 15, but not with the initial base text (which I must admit was a bit far from the problem raised), but with the text that I propose to Linkedin friends under these lines.
________________________________________
REGARDING THE FRAUDULENT AND STERILE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY
I believe that the secular influence of the theology and dogmatics of the Church (inherited, to a large extent, by the Lutheran reformers), as well as the ideology generated over eighteen centuries on the substratum of the New Testament, have led and They continue to lead in the XXI century to great errors of study and interpretation of the origins of Christianity. I present a twelve-point list of the errors that I consider the most important, and that surprise me the most and call my attention.
1) Interpret the letters attributed to the figure of Paul of Tarsus from the theology and from texts edited and manipulated by the Church (with their corrections, interpolations and amendments) at the end of the second century; and not from a broader vision that starts at the base and the beginning. That is, framing this epistolary within a historical vision that must begin (diachronically speaking) with the Christianity of Marcion and with the Christianity of the Gnostic teachers (Valentin, Basilides, Carpocrates, Ptolemy, etc.), for whom Paul of Tarsus was neither more nor less than «the Apostle of the Resurrection». For the death and resurrection of the Messiah-Christ, in Paul, were nothing other than the allegorical account of the annihilation and death of the Spirit, executed by the archons of this world (lords of cosmic matter), and the awakening to the Wisdom and identity with Christ, to the faith in the resurrection of the Spirit of God (pagan mystery and protognosticism). Everyone should know that, written in Greek, the letters predated the gospels (also written in Greek), and, as we know them today, they arrived late: several decades after being exhibited and interpreted by the heresiarch Marcion and by the Gnostic masters. Firstly, Jewish mysticism and protognosticism happened; then came the interpretations and dogmas of ecclesiastics… The Church was not born in the Gospel of Matthew (as pious legend tells), but after a ruthless struggle of certain «Judaizing» bishops with textual allegorism, with Christianity of Marcion and with the Christianity of the Gnostic masters. And whoever does not understand the foundations of Christianity as a constructivist process of texts and ideology based on the sapiential and apocalyptic tradition, and inspired by the Book of Daniel, (as something completely alien to the pious legends of «Acts of the Apostles») you will understand absolutely nothing about all these matters.
2) Considering the three Synoptic Gospels as biographies of Jesus Christ (or of Jesus, as they say in these times) is another of the enormous errors of the so-called contemporary research; something that many researchers claim without any foundation. In general terms, these points of view fit into the consideration of these three texts as a historical chronicle of Judea in the first century: a more or less successful account of the Herodian history of Judea and Galilee.
3) Another of the most important errors derives from the inability (and ignorance) to understand that the gospels (in a broad sense, which includes canonicals and gnostics) are midrashic literature (Midrash-Pésher): allegorical and symbolic texts inspired by scriptural motifs that imply, at least, two different levels of reading. A literature developed, originally, against the background of the archetypes of apocalyptic ideology (revelation, kingdom of God, heavenly judge, final judgment, resurrection of the dead, etc.) in transition, after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the year 70, to a pre-Pauline and Pauline-based protognosticism (revealer, descent of the Spirit-Son of God, salvation, return to heaven, etc.). A protognosticism that, imbued with Platonism, led from apocalyptic literature to Christian Gnosticism at the end of the first century and in the second and third centuries.
4) …Not understanding that the synoptic gospels (in an emic sense) were nothing more than the story of the myth of the descent to earth and the incarnation of the Spirit, in the broadest sense of protognosticism and Christian gnosticism. That is to say, the late Platonic account of the descent of the soul to the sensible world, which died or was annihilated, imprisoned and nailed to matter (wood), under the salvific expectation of the resurrection and the final ascent to heaven. In a mythical sense, we can speak of the descent of the Offspring of Good (Platonic) or of the Son of God-Wisdom, however we want to call it.
5) … Not understanding, as recognized by the great Raimundo Panikkar (whom I have always admired, despite the great differences (materialism vs. mysticism)… Not understanding, he said, that, in Christianity, «first was the Word (the Logos) and later came the flesh». This is something evident in the Pauline letters, in Christian Gnosticism and in the fourth gospel. And it also appears in a manifest way, although not in an evident way, in the three synoptic gospels. The main thing in these three (synoptic) texts is, above all, the descent of the Spirit (the Son of God), who descends, as a revealer (like the Zoroastrian saviors and the central figure of the Gnostic myth), to save sleeping men (dead) and prisoners of matter; in such a way that the resurrection (awakening) will be the reward of the “chosen” and those privileged by divine “grace.” In the Gospel of Mark, the Spirit descends into the Jordan in his first lines. And the gospels s of Mateo and Lucas present like base the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit, and not another thing.
6) …Not understanding or knowing absolutely nothing, beyond the dogmas of theology, of the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit-Wisdom-Son of God. That is, not knowing the platonic component of the phenomenon and not knowing what the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit is from an anthropological (and historical), materialistic, naturalistic or positivist point of view. For this reason, I must make it clear that it was not Christ who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, as many pious catechists and uninformed teachers affirm. Nor did they carry on the aching backs of «a rebellious Galilean» (Jesus) the heavy burden of theology, as many third- and fourth-rate historians believe. In an emic sense, what the evangelical texts relate is the incarnation of the Spirit-Wisdom-Son of God in the double Jewish figure of Jesus-Joshua/Messiah-Christós; through whose mythical narration the Son of God became man. Although, in an etic sense, and as I have repeated on countless occasions, we must recognize the allegorical and symbolic character of the texts; who, beyond the literal reading (the Son of God becomes Man) and in a deeper reading, transport us to the Gnostic idea of the divine component (the spark of light) within human carnality. As Campbell rightly said, “God did not become a Man, nor did he divinize and adopt a human being; because that man, the world itself, knew itself to be divine; from whose anthropological experience derived a field of inexhaustible spiritual depth. Here is the secret and the basis of the myth of the incarnation of the divinity.
7) …Not understanding, or not wanting to understand, that the Redemptorist ideology of the forgiveness of sins due to the monstrosity of the spilled blood, the suffering and the humiliation of the Suffering Servant, or the Lamb of God, was something really late, from the end of from the second century and the third century (I stick to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, whom fashion and the ideologies of ecclesiastical and academic power have condemned to the rat room). The forgiveness of sins and redemption by blood was something much later than the mysteries and the protognosticism of Paul of Tarsus, and also later than the primitive Christian Gnosticism, where death and resurrection meant things very different from those interpreted by the bishops of the Church. It goes without saying that the notion of «Vicarious Satisfaction» was raised, for the first time, by Irenaeus of Lyons, at the end of the second century; and it was not developed until San Anselmo, in the eleventh century, the date on which, according to specialists in religious iconography, the first crucifixes appeared with the suffering Christ and his head tilted to one side.
8) Consequently, ignoring all the above aspects, some so-called historians insist, time and time again, on the gargantuan methodological error that supposes separating «the Christ of faith» and «the historical Jesus». An arbitrary and capricious separation that, clearly, entails a petition of principle (petitio principii); because we know for sure what «the Christ of Faith» is or was (the Spirit of God, the Son of the Most High, etc.), but no one knows, beyond the dogmas of the Church, what was «the historical Jesus» or the human component of the divinity. I understand that only from the influence of theology or from the ideology that the Church has distilled over eighteen centuries, can such methodological barbarity be proposed. I have repeated it countless times… The first reference to the humanization of the myth is very late, around the year one hundred and forty, in the Acts of the Apostles, a work of ecclesiastical propaganda of very dubious historicity. And then Justin Martyr, right in the middle of the second century, who spoke in his Dialogue with Trypho of a «crucified teacher.» Subsequently, the conciliar theology conceived of Jesus Christ as «true god and man», but this is a matter that does not concern scientific research.
9) Another error is not seeing, or not wanting to see, that the four canonical gospels do not appear documented in the texts until the second half of the second century. Proof of this was that, despite the obscure references of Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century, was unaware of the Gospels as such. The canonical gospels (edited and literarily finalized by the bishops in the second half of the second century) pose problems of the second century on the basis of apocalyptic texts from the end of the first century and very close to the Qumran tradition. Hence, in its pages are combined such heterogeneous and disparate issues as apocalyptic ideology and protagnosticism, (to a certain extent assimilable within a line of cultural evolution in time), and the rabbinic pharisaism of the beatitudes (completely unassimilable and refractory to previous streams).
10) Not understanding or not wanting to understand that «Jesus» and «Joshua» are the same name, expressed through two different signifiers. Christians in general, most theologians and many academic officials easily forget that the first thing that Joshua-Jesus (the son of Nun) did before entering the Promised Land was to cross the Jordan (as an initiatory rite or baptism), choose twelve disciples (one from each tribe of Israel) and pile up twelve stones as a sign of commemoration. Latin and Western translators, in a very special way, have ruthlessly played with the original Greek terminology. And a good example is the manipulation of the name of the evangelical hero; although there are many more examples whose enumeration would go beyond the purpose of this text.
11) For the rest, the ignorance and denial by Christians, theologians and many academic officials of a protognostic Judeo-Christianity prior to Paul of Tarsus is inexcusable, and which, consequently, cannot be considered as Pauline. It is a Christianity in which there was no death or resurrection of Jesus Christ; only descent of the revealer or savior to earth and return to heaven after having fulfilled his salvific mission. Evident examples of this non-Pauline, early Jewish «Christianity», are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (I rely on the temporality criterion established by Koester, Crossan, Pagels, and others) and the Odes of Solomon (Jack T. Sanders). It is clear that the Gospel of Thomas is not a hypothesis constructed from theology and philology, like «Source Q»: it is a real Gnostic gospel that narrates the sayings of a Christ-Revealer who does not die or rise again. The Odes of Solomon, a Jewish apocryphal of a Gnostic character, spoke (before Paul of Tarsus and Mark) of the incarnation of the Son of God, and there the Virgin also conceived by the work of the Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove. The cross was the sacred tree on which Christ-Savior extended his arms (just as the Sibylline Oracles presented Joshua, the son of Nun (the fish)), while the Messiah-Christ also walked on the waters: «His footprints stood firm on the water, without any problem, because they were as firm as the tree that is truly raised.» The Odes of Solomon spoke, in short, of a Jewish Christ-Messiah of a Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) character who overcame the death to which his persecutors led him, finally ascended to glory and also descended to hell.
12) Finally, I extend the ignorance expressed in the previous point to the very generalized ignorance of what is known as «Intertestamental Jewish Apocrypha», who, together with the work of Philo of Alexandria and certain texts from Qumran, constitute the basis of the theologies-mythologies of Christian Gnosticism and Catholic Christianity of the Church. These are textual constructions based on Midrash-Pésher methodologies that invariably rescue figures and scriptural themes to graft them onto the problem (apocalyptic, sapiential or protognostic) and offer answers to the questions and concerns of their historical moment. Thus we find the «Odes of Solomon»; the «Wisdom of Solomon»; the «Psalms of Solomon»; the «Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (II Baruch)»; «IV Esdras»; the «Book of the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch)»; the «Sibylline Oracles»; the «Assumption of Moses»; the «Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs»; the «Apocalypse of Moses»; the «Life of Adam and Eve»; «Joseph and Aseneth»; «Manasseh’s Prayer»; «2 Enoch»; «3 Enoch»; «Ascension of Isaiah»; «Adam’s Testament»; «Job’s Testament»; «Testament of Moses»; «Testament of Abraham»; «Testaments of Isaac and Jacob»; «Testament of Solomon»; «Apocalypse of Adam»; «Apocalypse of Abraham»; «Apocalypse of Elijah»; «Apocalypse of Zephaniah»; «11QMelchizedek»; etc.,etc., etc. I conclude by emphatically affirming that he will not know the true origins of Christianity who does not know in depth all these Jewish apocryphal texts.
La forma en que el triple mito cristiano aparece presentado en mis últimos trabajos.
Mito de la Encarnación Divina en el Alma Humana. / Mito de la Presencia Escatológica del Juez-Salvador. / Y Mito de la Muerte-Resurrección de la Divinidad.
SOBRE LA SAGA DE UNA MITOLOGIA (CRISTIANA) AFERRADA A LA FÁBULA ECLESIÁSTICA Y NO AUTORRECONOCIDA COMO TAL. / En este pequeño artículo explico de forma didáctica y clara los tres mitos helenísticos que confluyeron y dieron lugar al cristianismo primitivo, y su relación con mis tres libros publicados entre 2021 y 2025: el mito de la encarnación divina en el alma humana, el mito de la presencia escatológica del juez-salvador entre las nubes del cielo y el mito de la muerte y la resurrección de la divinidad.
Un amigo estadounidense, que ha leído mis libros anteriores, ha hecho varios comentarios en las redes sociales, a los que he respondido de forma apresurada y espontánea con argumentos que él entiende, pero que sin duda resultarán oscuros para quien no haya leído ninguno de mis trabajos. / Sugiere Reyes que, con este nuevo libro mío de 2024-2025, cierro una trilogía de crítica cristiana. Lo cual, aunque puede resultar aceptable, personalmente no termina de convencerme del todo. Yo más bien hablaría de una DILOGIA CRISTIANA, respaldada por un tercer trabajo de carácter netamente antropológico. Por lo que, para que me entienda todo el mundo, amplío y detallo los comentarios que le he hecho a Marlon en otras redes, y que creo resumen mi trabajo de los últimos años:
—En el libro SACRIFICIO Y DRAMA DEL REY SAGRADO (2021) presenté una DIALECTICA (de carácter antropológico e histórico) del mito de la muerte y la resurrección de la divinidad (de orden mistérico), desarrollada y destacada sobre el telón de fondo del mito de la encarnación divina en el mundo (de carácter órfico-platónico) y el mito de la presencia escatológica en la tierra del juez-salvador (apocalíptica de origen persa). (3 en 1: los tres grandes mitos de la mitología cristiana; o las tres patas del mito cristiano)
—Y de manera algo diferente, en este último libro (2025), EL MITO CRISTIANO, SEGUN LOS TEXTOS, lo que presento es una ANALITICA del mito cristiano por excelencia: el mito griego de la encarnación de la divinidad en el alma humana (de carácter órfico y platónico), resaltado y troquelado sobre el telón de fondo del mito de la presencia escatológica en el mundo del juez-salvador (de origen helenístico y persa) y del mito de la muerte y la resurrección de la divinidad (de carácter mistérico, origen helenístico y procedencia arcaica).
—Sin embargo, en mi libro SACRIFICIOS HUMANOS, CANIBALISMO Y SEXUALIDAD RITUAL EN EL MUNDO ANTIGUO (20230 lo que hice fue desarrollar temas contemplados muy de pasada en SDRS, relativos a la ritualidad y a los cultos primitivos, dentro de la perspectiva de otro de mis intereses y campos de estudio: el de los ELEMENTOS PARA UNA TEORIA MATERIALISTA DE LA CONSTRUCCION DE LO SAGRADO. Por supuesto, la mitología cristiana, así como gran parte de su ritualidad, aparecían y estaban presentes en esta obra; pero ello dentro de un plano muy general que contemplaba, más allá de la religión, el extenso campo de lo sagrado.
«The Messiah-Christ is an ancient and archaic myth reformulated by the sects of apocalyptic messianism and transformed by Gnosticism and the Church of the second century».
At the end of November 2021, the book “Sacrifice and Drama of the Sacred King” began to be distributed, which contains, according to specialists and according to the author himself, a particular vision of Christianity, its most immediate antecedents and its most remote origins. A vision of Christ and the birth of the Church built with a methodology that flees both from the theological visions of Catholic and Lutheran researchers, as well as from the analytical and abstract approaches commonly used by the contemporary academic world. In such a way that the theory of Christianity that this work proposes is that of a varied set of phenomena and cultural references that, in clear and constant evolution, converged in a specific cultural context: that of Hellenistic (and Hellenized) Judaism of the centuries before and after the turn of the era, and before the rabbinical Judaism of the second century. But nobody better than its author, Eliseo Ferrer, to explain the details of the work.
A propósito del libro del autor holandés Martijn Linssen: «Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament – The order of books according to Jesus Christ», publicado a finales del pasado año 2023. Un libro realmente sorprendente e innovador que presenta una radical ruptura con los convencionalismos tradicionales en torno a los orígenes del cristianismo primitivo. ¡Las traducciones han sido fraudulentas!
Eliseo Ferrer (declarado ateo esencialista) plantea en esta carta pública un carácter «sagrado» de los orígenes antropológicos de las distintas culturas; y ello desde posiciones materialistas que nada tienen que ver con el creacionismo divino de la teología ni con el de las creencias religiosas. Ferrer ofrece como puntos de referencia los trabajos de Walter Burkert y de Gustavo Bueno, para situarnos en un estadio previo a la cultura humana dominado por la cultura animal de los homínidos y los primates. Al mismo tiempo, Eliseo Ferrer, sobre la base del Materialismo Filosófico de Bueno, hace una disección conceptual de campos gnoseológicos (religión, relaciones numinosas, chamanismo, magia, fetichismo, santidad, etc.) contenidos dentro de la idea de lo sagrado, para llegar a la conclusión de que la Religión (institucionalizada), tal y como hoy la entendemos, es un fenómeno relativamente reciente, fruto del zoroastrismo persa y de los filósofos griegos. De esta forma, apoyado en los tres estadios de Gustavo Bueno, el autor habla de Cultos animales, Cultos mitológicos y Religiones teológicas.
