Red Pill Gospel: Christianity, before it was ruined by Christians.

I’ve heard good things about his vaccine research books, but since I’m already very knowledgeable about that issue (although still learning every day of course), I decided to get this book instead, hoping to get some insight into some of the (from my point of view) anti-Torah teachings of Christianity—although they claim to believe the entire Hebrew Bible, too. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I’m Jewish, and fairly religious. But I went to Christian school from 7-12 grade and have many Christian friends and family who are always trying to “tell me about Jesus”.I don’t have a problem with Jesus. I believe he was sent by G-d, actually, and the first 3 gospels, James, and Revelation are very Jewish books.But Christianity is pagan, from my point of view. And if something is anti-Torah, it’s anti-G-d. But still, if Y’shua was a moshiach—I don’t want to inadvertently throw out the baby with the bath water.So I hoped and expected this book would shed some light on the subject.I don’t regret reading it, b/c the author invites people to contact him, and I plan to. And his humanity really comes through, so I don’t doubt his sincerity.And for a person brought up in the church and never questioned anything, this book might be helpful. Even if you draw different conclusions, it can get you thinking.Some of his objections are to teachings which don’t seem to be supported in either of the testaments are the deity of Y’shua and the Trinity. I concur.But I feel disappointed because I feel at least half the book was against Calvinism, but that’s only one stream of Christian thought, and I don’t think deserving of the majority of his focus unless the book was marketed specifically as paying attention to that. So perhaps helpful to some, but not the majority unless they just want more information about Calvinism.All the above is just context and information for readers. Nothing new to me and wasn’t helpful, but may be relevant or helpful to some.Now for my criticism.He is criticizing or analyzing Christian dogma that is taken for granted yet not supported by scripture (according to his, and others including my own, assessment).However, ironically, he writes from a Christian point of view that is still based on assumptions (from my point of view). That Christ had to die to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins, and we have to believe in him, is taken for granted by him. That doctrine, above any other, is not according to Hebrew scripture (Tanakh), which in his time, was all anyone used, obviously. No man can pay for another’s sin. That’s both stated and implied in the Tanakh.And G-d says he wants other things besides sacrifice—caring for orphans and widows, praying with a humble heart, and other deeds that are the : acceptable sacrifice. And yes He did give specific instructions on animal sacrifice, but it was only for specific sins, and if you couldn’t afford a lamb for example, you could bring a bird (I forgot what kind, sorry), if you couldn’t afford that then you could bring grain. Other sins were covered by grain offerings. The grain was burned and the meat cooked and eaten. Only a certain piece of fat was burnt/not eaten. So if Y’shua was the payment of all humanity’s sins, and the sacrifices were a foreshadowing of his sacrifice, as Christianity says, then only animal sacrifices would have been acceptable for the people of Israel, and then when he died, his body would have been burned!Additionally, if Christians believe the Tanakh is also G-D’s true word, then what do they make of what Micah says (my paraphrase) “shall I give my firstborn for the sin of my soul? No, He has shown you, humanity, what is good and what Adonai requires of you: To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with G-d”.Not to mention G-d said human sacrifice and sacrificing one’s children was a complete abomination. I think it called for the death penalty altho my memory isn’t perfect on that. But why then would He suddenly say “Just kidding, now sacrificing my son is the only way you’re ever going to be considered righteous? “Makes no sense whatsoever.I realize that no one book can address all aspects of a topic. I just found it ironic, and perhaps disappointing, that the point of view he wrote from still was laden with many assumptions that aren’t supported in scripture. At least not the scripture that Y’shua and his followers had available to them. The Christian scriptures came later—so I understand that Christians consider them scripture—-but if he’s going back to see what the truth was BEFORE church history formed an official narrative, you can’t use the “new” testament as scripture or evidence.

It's not at all shocking when the information shared is actually questions that I have been asking for years.

I really enjoyed reading the history of the church contained in this book, and there is so much more missing that readers should research.. for example, when sabbath changed and why Christians stopped honoring Torah as Jesus did.My problem with the book is that many of the authors “revelations” stand against clear scripture. I understand that many religions have different views, but if you are a believer, the Bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is up to us to look into original text, consider translation issues, and take scriptures in the context of the entire chapter and book even. The specific red pill seeds he is planting are false. I also meddled in the “there’s no hell”, no judgement just love, doctrine, but scripture is clear when you are seeking truth and not seeking to appease your flesh. I pray that no one is mislead from this heresy.

Would you like to see the real world that has been veiled by our transitions? If so, choose the red pill and hold on tight!

Disappointing book, read the comments and thought it would be a fresh look at the gospels and their history, but it is the personal view from an obviously Baptist writer, with whose views I cannot agree. May be people from the Baptist churches can follow him, but I certainly did not.

Great read. I was given this book and saw a poor review so I decided to comment. You have to be open to the idea that what you've been taught could be wrong.The Trinity, for example, is not agreed upon by all Christians. Pentecostals firmly deny a Trinity, while Catholics live by it. In essence, its theory. And a controversial one at that.To say this book is terrible because it challenges what you believe to be true is absurd. The book promises to challenge what you believe to be true. So 5 stars. Give it a go and decide for yourself.

Maready claims to be a Christian and have deep insights into Christianity. He denies the deity of Christ which quickly reveals he doesn't know the first thing about Christianity.

This book is interesting, not in a patronising “interesting” kind of way. But in a thought provoking confronting kind.It is not for the feint hearted, it is not “easy” to read, it questions so many of the fundamental pillars of today’s church with very little to ease you into it.But despite that, it’s written in a logical and coherent manor that makes you understand how FM came to his conclusions.Does that mean I agree with everything he has said? Nope.Does that mean my faith is fundamentally changed?Nope.It just means it helps me understand another view point I’d never previously considered.It made me familiar with more of the dirty laundry of Christianity that the church white washes.It’s clear FM has a bee in his bonnet when it comes to Calvin(ism), which does take a precedent for a large part of the book.On the whole a very interesting book, but not necessarily one for those who aren’t prepared to think about their faith deeper.It evokes the need to dig deeper into the bible to rediscover the foundations for our faith and how we practice it, which can’t be a bad thing can it?

I'm not a Christian, however this book challenged my ignorance of Christianity. An ignorance which is apparently shared with many Christians!

Read the book in a couple of days. Great perspective, a must read.