If the NT claim God never changes why does it treat Him as if He does

The New Testament’s claim that God does not change, but then the Church nevertheless reworks the Sinai covenant in practice and doctrine.

Part 1 — New Testament verses explicitly stating God does not change

Here are clear, direct NT statements affirming God’s immutability (not poetic vibes, but doctrinal claims):

James 1:17

“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”

Hebrews 13:8

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Hebrews 6:17–18

“God desired to show more convincingly… the unchangeable character of His purpose… it is impossible for God to lie.”

Romans 11:29

“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

2 Timothy 2:13

“If we are faithless, He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself.”

Titus 1:2

“God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.”

So the NT loudly affirms:

God does not change

God does not revoke His commitments

God does not contradict Himself

Good. That’s the standard.

Part 2 — How the Church nevertheless changes the Sinai covenant

Here’s where the contradiction kicks in — not in theory, but in outcomes.

1. Sinai says the covenant is eternal — the Church says it’s obsolete

Sinai:

Exodus 31:16–17 — “A perpetual covenant throughout their generations.”

Leviticus 24:8 — “An everlasting covenant.”

Church teaching (NT-based):

Hebrews 8:13 — “He has made the first obsolete.”

If God does not change and His covenants are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), then declaring Sinai “obsolete” is not continuity — it is replacement.

2. Torah says obedience brings life — the Church replaces it with belief alone

Sinai:

Deuteronomy 30:15–16 — “Choose life… by loving YHWH and keeping His commandments.”

Church shift:

Torah observance redefined as “bondage”

Commandments reframed as “fulfilled and set aside”

Faith detached from covenant obedience

This is not reinterpretation — it is a functional cancellation of Sinai’s operating system.

3. Sinai forbids adding or subtracting — the Church does both

Torah rule:

Deuteronomy 4:2 — “You shall not add to it or take from it.”

Church actions:

Removes dietary law

Removes Sabbath

Replaces festivals

Redefines covenant signs (circumcision → baptism; Passover → Eucharist)

Even if one argues symbolism, Sinai forbids substitution — not just rejection.

4. Sinai says the covenant is with Israel — the Church universalizes it

Sinai:

Exodus 19:5–6 — “You shall be My treasured possession among all peoples.”

Deuteronomy 7:6 — “YHWH has chosen you.”

Church move:

Israel redefined as “the Church”

Covenant transferred, spiritualized, or absorbed

Ethnic and national promises reinterpreted away

That is not expansion — it is identity reassignment.

5. God is said not to change — yet His covenantal expectations do

This is the core tension:

Same God

Same moral authority

Same faithfulness

Different covenant requirements

If God’s nature and commitments do not change, then:

Eternal law cannot become temporary

Everlasting covenant cannot become obsolete

Divine instruction cannot become optional

Yet this is exactly what Church theology teaches.

Bottom line (and this is the fracture point)

The New Testament verbally affirms God’s immutability

while the Church’s theology functionally depends on covenant change.

From a Sinai-faithful (Karaite) perspective, that is not continuity — it is contradiction.

Either:

God does not change and Sinai stands, or

Sinai changes and the claim of immutability is compromised

You can’t consistently hold both without redefining what “unchanging” means.

The Latin Vulgate translation transformed a Hebrew faith into a Roman institution

1. The Translation Filter: "Preservation" vs. "Adjustment"

The post claims that translation does not create new doctrines.

• The Karaite Audit: Translation is an act of Interpretation. When the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek Ekklesia as the Latin Ecclesia (Church), it reinforced an institutional hierarchy. When it translated Metanoia (Change of mind) as Paenitentiam agite (Do penance), it created the Doctrine of Penance—a concept completely foreign to the Hebrew Teshuva (Return).

• The Verdict: The Vulgate didn't "change" the letters of the text, but it "re-coded" the meaning to fit a Roman legal framework. A translation into the language of the Empire naturally adopted the concepts of the Empire.

2. The "Mass" vs. The Jewish Temple Service

The claim that the Mass comes "directly from Jewish worship" is a half-truth used to provide Veneer Authority.

• The Security Filter: Jewish worship in the Tanakh is centered on the Aaronic Priesthood, the Physical Temple in Jerusalem, and a Blood Sacrifice that is never eaten.

• The Refutation: The Catholic Mass involves a "perpetual sacrifice" where the "Body and Blood" are consumed. This is a direct violation of the Torah’s Eternal Prohibition against consuming blood (Leviticus 17:10-14).

• The Verdict: Calling the Mass "Jewish" is a category error. If a priest in Rome claims to offer a sacrifice that bypasses the Altar in Jerusalem and involves drinking "blood," he is not following the Tanakh; he is practicing a New Ritual that the Torah defines as an abomination.

3. The "Mithraism" Strawman: A Diversion

The user argues that there is no evidence the Mass is "Pagan Mithraism."

• The Karaite Perspective: This is a distraction. A practice doesn't have to be "Mithraic" to be Avodah Zarah (Foreign Worship).

• The Reality: The evidence of pagan influence is not found in the "scripts" of the Mass, but in the Structure of the System. The use of statues/images, the "Queen of Heaven" (Mary) veneration, the "Keys of Peter" (replacing the Roman Janus), and the adoption of the Solar Calendar (Sunday and Christmas) are all documented shifts that align with the Religious Synthesis of the Constantinian era.

• The Verdict: Whether the source was Mithra, Sol Invictus, or Isis is secondary; the primary point is that it is not the Torah.

4. "Honesty" vs. "Theological Pedigree"

The post asks for "honesty" rather than "recycled accusations."

• The Sovereign Verdict: Honesty requires acknowledging that the "Early Christians" described in the post had already diverged from the Sovereignty of Sinai by the second century.

• The Conclusion: The Roman Church is a Hybrid System. It took the "Hardware" of the Hebrew Scriptures and installed "Gentile Software." To a Karaite, this isn't about "anger" or "calling things evil"—it is about Legal Accuracy. If the system does not align with the Written Law given to Moses, it is a Broken Contract, no matter how old or "visible" it is.

---

The Sovereign Verdict

Fidelis Deo is right that the Latin Vulgate used the same "texts," but he is wrong to suggest those texts were preserved without Institutional Bias. The Mass is not "Jewish"; it is a Replacement Ritual that utilizes Jewish terminology to authorize a Roman practice. The "honesty" the user asks for is found in the Tanakh, which remains the only yardstick by which any "Church" can be judged.

Why Jesus cannot be the Messiah

1. Why Jesus cannot be the Messiah (from a Sinai-covenant perspective)

The Messiah, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, is a human king from the line of David whose mission is public, historical, and earthly, not spiritualized or postponed.

Key expectations that must be fulfilled in the Messiah’s lifetime:

Restoration of Davidic kingship

Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem

Ingathering of all Israel from exile

Establishment of peace among the nations

Universal recognition of the God of Israel

Restoration of Torah observance

From this perspective:

Jesus did none of these things

The world remained violent and idolatrous

Israel was not restored but was later destroyed (70 CE)

The Temple was not rebuilt but razed

A messiah who fails to accomplish the messianic mission is, by definition, not the messiah.

The idea of a “second coming” is seen as an ad hoc solution, not a biblical one.

2. The problem with Christian readings of messianic prophecies

From this view, Christianity relies heavily on reinterpretation, typology, and retroactive readings rather than the plain meaning (peshat) of the text.

Common objections:

a) Isaiah 7:14

Refers to a sign for King Ahaz, not a future messiah

The Hebrew word almah means “young woman,” not “virgin”

The prophecy has an immediate historical fulfillment

b) Isaiah 53

The “suffering servant” is identified elsewhere in Isaiah as Israel itself

The servant suffers because of the nations, not to atone for them

No Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice → no atonement mechanism

c) Psalm 22

A poetic lament, not predictive prophecy

Describes suffering but ends in vindication within the psalm

No indication of a dying-and-rising messiah figure

From this framework, Christian prophecy claims depend on:

Selective quotation

Translation choices favoring theology

Reading later beliefs back into earlier texts

3. Why the Sinai covenant cannot be replaced

This is the core theological objection.

The Torah explicitly states that the covenant at Sinai is:

Eternal

Unconditional

Binding on Israel forever

Key passages:

“It is an everlasting covenant for all generations”

“The Torah is not in heaven” (cannot be changed later)

God does not repent or change His mind

From this view:

A “new covenant” cannot replace Sinai

Any covenant that nullifies Torah observance is false by definition

God does not contradict His own law

Even prophets:

Cannot override the Torah

Cannot introduce new worship systems

Cannot abolish commandments

A messianic figure who:

Ends sacrificial law without a Temple

Replaces Torah with belief

Introduces divine incarnation

…is seen as violating Deuteronomy’s test of a true messenger.

4. The theological problem of incarnation and atonement

From the Sinai worldview:

God is absolutely one, indivisible, non-corporeal

God does not become human

God does not die

Human sacrifice is explicitly forbidden

Atonement requires:

Repentance (teshuvah)

Prayer

Obedience to Torah

Substitutionary atonement through a human death is viewed as:

Morally incompatible with Torah

Legally invalid without the Temple

Theologically incompatible with God’s nature

5. Summary of the core position

In short:

Jesus did not fulfill the biblical messianic mission

Messianic prophecies are reinterpreted, not plainly fulfilled

The Sinai covenant is eternal and non-replaceable

Torah cannot be abolished or superseded

God does not incarnate, die, or accept human sacrifice

From this framework, Christianity is understood not as a fulfillment of Torah, but as a theological departure from it.

From YHVH's perspective absolutely only the Sinai covenant counts

 From a Karaite (Tanakh-only) perspective, the Sinai Covenant is not merely an "old" agreement for a specific people; it is the Sovereign Constitution for all humanity. While other systems rely on the "living voices" of men or the evolving dogmas of churches, the Sinai Covenant remains the only Direct, Public, and Verified interface between the Creator and the Created.

Here are 10 reasons why the Sinai Covenant is $YHVH$’s preferred protocol:

1. The National Witness Protocol

Unlike other religions that began with a "private" vision given to one man in a cave or a desert, the Sinai Covenant was established through a Massive Public Revelation.

• The Logic: Over 600,000 men (plus women and children) heard the Voice of $YHVH$ directly (Deuteronomy 4:32-33).

• The Verdict: This creates a "National Witness" that cannot be forged. $YHVH$ prefers this because it removes the "Hearsay" element that plagues all other religions.

2. The Immutable Source Code

The Sinai Covenant was recorded in the Written Torah, which $YHVH$ commanded never to be added to or subtracted from (Deuteronomy 12:32).

• The Security Filter: This provides a "Fixed Standard" that survives generations. It prevents the "System Overwrites" seen in Christianity (Apostolic Tradition) and Rabbinic Judaism (Oral Law).

• The Verdict: $YHVH$ interacts through the Written Word to ensure that His Law remains pure and uncorrupted by human "interpretations."

3. Absolute Monotheism (The Shema)

Sinai established the absolute, indivisible Unity of $YHVH$ (Deuteronomy 6:4).

• The Karaite Audit: It excludes Trinitarianism, Modalism, and the veneration of saints.

• The Verdict: This is the preferred way because it protects the Sovereignty of the King. It ensures that humanity worships the Source, not a manifestation, a mediator, or a man.

4. The Moral Law as an Objective Reality

The Covenant provides a concrete definition of "Good" and "Evil" through the Commandments.

• The Refutation: Without the Sinai Standard, morality becomes "Subjective" or "Therapeutic."

• The Verdict: $YHVH$ prefers the Covenant because it provides Clear Jurisprudence. A person knows exactly what is expected of them; they don't have to guess God's "mood" or "will" through mystical feelings.

5. Functional Holiness (The Dietary and Purity Laws)

The Covenant involves the Physical Body, not just the "soul" or "spirit."

• The Logic: What you eat and how you treat your body matters to the Creator (Leviticus 11).

• The Verdict: Sinai is the preferred interaction because it seeks to Sanctify Matter. It turns the mundane acts of eating and hygiene into acts of worship, making the entire life "Set-Apart."

6. The Sabbath as a Memorial of Creation

The Fourth Commandment is a weekly appointment between $YHVH$ and humanity to acknowledge Him as the Creator (Exodus 20:11).

• The Security Filter: It is a perpetual sign that prevents the "Evolutionary Fairy Tale" from taking root.

• The Verdict: $YHVH$ prefers this interaction because it forces humanity to pause and remember their Origins every seven days, ensuring the "Creator/Creature" distinction is never lost.

7. Justice without Hierarchy

The Torah establishes one law for the native-born and the stranger (Exodus 12:49).

• The Karaite View: It removes the power of "Gatekeepers" (Popes, Rabbis, or Imams). Every individual is directly accountable to the Law.

• The Verdict: This is the preferred interaction because it is Egalitarian. $YHVH$ doesn't want "Mediators" between Him and His people; He wants every person to be a "Kingdom of Priests."

8. The Blessing and Curse Mechanism

The Covenant is a Legal Contract with clear consequences for obedience and disobedience (Deuteronomy 28).

• The Logic: This reflects the Natural Law of Cause and Effect.

• The Verdict: $YHVH$ prefers this because it respects Human Agency. We are not "saved by luck" or "damned by whim." We are partners in a contract where our choices determine our reality.

9. Historical Continuity (The Abrahamic Foundation)

The Sinai Covenant is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

• The Audit: It isn't a "New Religion"; it is the Authorized Expansion of the original promise.

• The Verdict: $YHVH$ is a God of Loyalty (Chesed). He prefers this interaction because it shows He keeps His word across thousands of years, anchoring our faith in history, not just philosophy.

10. The Return to Eden (The Goal of Torah)

The ultimate purpose of the Sinai Covenant is to create a "Holy Land" and a "Holy People" where the Presence of $YHVH$ can dwell among men.

• The Conclusion: It is the blueprint for a Restored Creation.

• The Sovereign Verdict: Unlike religions that focus on "escaping to heaven," Sinai focuses on Bringing Heaven to Earth. $YHVH$ prefers this because His original intent was to dwell with His creation, and the Torah is the only "Operating System" that makes that dwelling possible.

---

The Sovereign Verdict

The Sinai Covenant is $YHVH$'s preferred interaction because it is the only system that is Legally Sound, Historically Verified, and Physically Holistic. It doesn't ask you to "believe" in the dark; it asks you to Observe the Evidence and Keep the Statutes. It is the "Narrow Path" that leads back to the King.

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed contradicts Tanakh

Perfect — this verse is actually one of the clearest fault lines between Tanakh faith and the NT redefinition of faith.

The line in question (John 20:29):

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

From a pure Tanakh / Karaite perspective, this statement is not just unsupported — it directly contradicts the Torah’s epistemology.

Let’s do the same kind of breakdown as before.

1. In Tanakh, seeing is a prerequisite, not a problem

God repeatedly grounds covenant loyalty in witnessed reality:

“You have been shown, that you might know that YHWH is God” (Deut 4:35)

“Your eyes have seen all the great acts of YHWH” (Deut 11:7)

“This day your eyes see” (Deut 29:2–4)

Karaite principle:

God reveals Himself so that belief is reasonable, not blind.

Calling belief without seeing “blessed” reverses the Tanakh order.

2. Tanakh never praises belief without evidence

There is not a single place in the Hebrew Bible where God blesses someone for believing without seeing.

Instead:

Signs are given (Exod 4)

Proof is demanded (Deut 18)

Outcomes matter (Jer 28)

Even Abraham:

Sees fulfillment

Acts on commands

Is tested in history, not in abstraction

3. God expects scrutiny, not suspension of judgment

Tanakh explicitly warns against believing unseen claims:

Deut 13: Signs do not validate a false message

Deut 18: Prophets are tested by fulfillment

Isa 41–43: God challenges false gods to prove themselves

From a Karaite lens:

Faith without verification is dangerous, not virtuous.

4. Thomas is not rebuked by Tanakh standards

In John’s story, Thomas demands to see.

But from a Tanakh perspective, Thomas is doing exactly what Torah requires:

Testing testimony

Seeking confirmation

Refusing hearsay

Compare:

Gideon asks for signs → God complies (Judg 6)

Moses asks “Who sent me?” → God gives signs (Exod 3–4)

Tanakh never shames this behavior.

5. “Blessed” in Tanakh is tied to obedience, not credulity

Ashrei (“blessed”) in Tanakh always refers to:

Keeping Torah (Ps 1:1–2)

Walking in commandments (Ps 119:1)

Fearing YHWH through action (Prov 28:14)

Never:

Believing claims without verification

Trusting unseen metaphysical assertions

So the blessing formula itself is misapplied by Tanakh standards.

6. Tanakh faith is responsive, not anticipatory

Biblical faith works like this:

God acts openly

Humans witness

Humans respond in loyalty

NT faith (here) flips the order:

Believe first

Verification optional or discouraged

That reversal has no precedent in Sinai theology.

7. This teaching would fail the Deuteronomy test

Deut 13 principle:

Even if a claim is sincere, miraculous, or emotionally compelling —

if it introduces a new mode of faith not grounded in Torah, it is rejected.

“Blessed are those who believe without seeing” introduces:

A new virtue

A new epistemology

A new religious psychology

From a Karaite view, that alone disqualifies it.

8. Tanakh explicitly links belief failure to not seeing enough, not seeing too much

When Israel fails:

“They did not remember His power, the day they saw” (Ps 78:42)

Problem = forgetting what was seen

Solution = remembrance, not blind belief

So Tanakh diagnosis is the opposite of John 20:29.

9. The philosophical influence is Greek, not Hebrew

This saying reflects:

Greek virtue of trusting unseen realities

Platonic preference for invisible truth

Interior belief over public revelation

Hebrew thought is concrete, historical, and evidentiary.

10. Karaite bottom line

From a Karaite / Tanakh-only standpoint:

God never blesses belief without evidence

Faith without sight is not praised — it is warned against

Torah-based faith is loyalty to what God has revealed openly

Any theology that discourages verification undermines Sinai

In Tanakh terms:

Blessed are those who see what God has done

and therefore obey.

2 Corinthians 5:7 evaluated theough the Sinai covenant

2 Corinthians 5:7 evaluated theough the Sinai covenant

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.”

From a Tanakh / Karaite standpoint, this line is not an extension of biblical faith but a redefinition of it. Here’s why.

1. Tanakh faith is never opposed to sight

In the Hebrew Bible, seeing is foundational to believing:

“You yourselves have seen what YHWH did in Egypt” (Deut 4:9; 11:7)

“This day your eyes have seen” (Deut 29:2–3)

God repeatedly grounds obedience in witnessed acts

From a Karaite view:

Faith grows from sight — it is not praised for rejecting it.

2. “Walking” in Tanakh means walking in Torah

Biblically:

“Walk” = halakh → manner of life

“Walk in My statutes” (Lev 26:3)

“Walk in all His ways” (Deut 10:12)

So when Paul says “walk by faith,” a Karaite asks:

Which commandments define that walk?

If no Torah is specified, the phrase becomes content-less.

3. Tanakh condemns faith detached from evidence

God explicitly warns Israel not to believe claims without verification:

Deut 13: signs do not validate a message that contradicts Torah

Deut 18: prophets are tested by outcomes

Judges 6: Gideon asks for visible confirmation — and God complies

So “not by sight” as a virtue has no Tanakh precedent.

4. “Sight” in Tanakh includes commandments

In Hebrew thought:

Torah is seen, heard, touched, done

“See, I have set before you today life and good” (Deut 30:15)

Obedience is not blind trust — it is conscious engagement with revealed instruction.

5. Trust without Torah is unintelligible

Tanakh faith always has an object:

Trust in God

Expressed through commandments

Paul’s formulation:

Faith without visible Torah practice

Trust without national covenant

Walking without defined path

From a Karaite perspective, this is philosophical abstraction, not biblical faith.

6. Tanakh actually teaches the opposite principle

Consider these:

“The Torah of YHWH is clear, enlightening the eyes” (Ps 19:8)

“Your word is a lamp to my feet” (Ps 119:105)

“All the people saw the voices” (Exod 20:18)

Biblical faith illuminates sight — it doesn’t bypass it.

7. The Karaite diagnosis

2 Cor 5:7 reflects:

Greek dualism (seen vs unseen)

Interiorized belief

Detachment from law, land, and nation

All of which are foreign to Tanakh categories.

Tanakh-based equivalent (and contradiction)

Tanakh principle:

“You shall know today and take it to heart…” (Deut 4:39)

Knowing precedes trusting.

Seeing precedes walking.

Commandments precede faithfulness.

Bottom line (Karaite framing)

From a Karaite view:

“Walking by faith, not by sight” is not biblical

Tanakh faith is walk by Torah because you have seen

Trust without sight is not virtue — it is gullibility

God never asks Israel to suspend reason or evidence

Biblical faith is loyalty to what God has already revealed — openly, publicly, and verifiably.

Hebrews 11:1 is not introducing a new concept.

Hebrews 11:1 is not introducing a new concept. 

From a Tanakh (and especially Karaite) perspective, it’s actually a Greek re-packaging of ideas already present in the Hebrew Scriptures — with an important shift in emphasis.

Hebrews 11:1:

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Now let’s look at Tanakh-based equivalents — conceptually, not forced word-for-word.

1. Habakkuk 2:4

“The righteous shall live by his faithfulness (emunah).”

Key point:

Emunah does not mean abstract belief

It means steadfastness, loyalty, reliability, lived trust

From a Tanakh lens:

Faith = covenantal faithfulness, not mental assent

This is the closest conceptual parallel — and it’s ethical, not metaphysical.

2. Exodus 14:31

“They believed (va-ya’aminu) in YHWH and in Moses His servant.”

What this means in context:

Israel believes after seeing deliverance

Belief follows action and experience

It leads immediately to obedience

So unlike Hebrews 11:1:

Faith is response to God’s acts, not belief without evidence

3. Psalm 37:3–5

“Trust in YHWH and do good… Commit your way to YHWH… and He will act.”

Here faith:

Is trust expressed through action

Is forward-looking, but grounded in obedience

Has expected outcomes in the real world

This fits the “hope” aspect — without detaching it from deeds.

4. Proverbs 3:5–6

“Trust in YHWH with all your heart… and He will make your paths straight.”

Important:

Trust is relational, not speculative

No praise for believing unseen doctrines

Trust is validated by God’s guidance in life

5. Isaiah 26:3–4

“You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You.”

Faith here:

Produces stability, not mystical certainty

Is ongoing reliance, not a one-time belief

6. Psalm 119:66

“Teach me good judgment and knowledge, for I trust in Your commandments.”

This is crucial for a Karaite reading:

Trust is placed in God’s commandments

Faith is inseparable from Torah

No Torah = no biblical faith

7. Genesis 15:6 (Abraham)

“He trusted YHWH, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”

Often misused later, but in Tanakh:

Abraham’s trust is followed by obedience (Gen 17, 22)

His faith is validated by action, not belief alone

From a Karaite view:

Genesis 15 cannot be detached from Genesis 17 & 22

8. Deuteronomy 30:14

“The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.”

This directly contradicts a Hebrews-style abstraction:

Faith is not belief in unseen realities

Faith is doing what is known and commanded

9. Psalm 78:22

“They did not believe in God, nor trust in His salvation.”

Why they lacked faith?

Because they disobeyed, despite miracles

So in Tanakh logic:

Unbelief = disobedience

Faith = obedience with trust

10. Ecclesiastes 12:13

“Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”

This is the Tanakh’s final word on faith:

No abstraction

No metaphysics

No invisible substances

Just loyalty expressed in action

Key Karaite Contrast with Hebrews 11:1

Tanakh Faith

Hebrews-style Faith

Trust proven by obedience

Belief in unseen realities

Rooted in Torah

Detached from Torah

Verified in history

Internal assurance

Communal & covenantal

Individual & abstract

Bottom line (Karaite framing)

Yes, the Tanakh has equivalents — but they redefine what “faith” actually is.

In Tanakh terms,

faith is not confidence in the unseen

it is loyalty to the revealed will of God.

Hebrews 11:1 doesn’t expand biblical faith — it reinterprets it through a Greek philosophical lens.

10 Karaite Reasons the Sinai Covenant Is Superior to the NT “Gospel”

1. The Sinai Covenant was made with an entire nation

God revealed Himself publicly to millions (Exod 19–20)

Voices, fire, smoke, shofar — not private visions

No later covenant matches this level of verification

Karaite principle:

Truth established publicly > claims based on a few witnesses

2. The Sinai Covenant is explicitly eternal

“A statute forever throughout your generations” (Exod 31:16)

“Not with our fathers only, but with us, all who are alive today” (Deut 5:3)

There is no verse in Tanakh saying it will expire, be replaced, or suspended.

3. Torah explicitly forbids alteration

“You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deut 4:2; 13:1)

Any “new covenant” that changes commandments self-disqualifies

From a Karaite view, this alone ends the discussion.

4. God does not contradict Himself

God calls the Torah:

Perfect (Ps 19:7)

Truth (Ps 119:142)

Eternal (Ps 119:160)

Claiming it was later “fulfilled and set aside” implies divine error, which Tanakh theology rejects outright.

5. Sinai defines sin, righteousness, and justice

Sin = breaking Torah

Repentance = returning to Torah

Atonement = repentance + obedience + God’s mercy

The NT redefines these categories — which, from a Karaite view, is theological replacement, not fulfillment.

6. No mediator replaces direct covenantal access

Sinai: God speaks directly to Israel

NT: access filtered through a single person

Tanakh consistently teaches:

“The word is very near you… in your mouth and heart” (Deut 30:14)

No incarnate intermediary is required or permitted.

7. The Sinai Covenant preserves divine unity

Absolute monotheism: God is one, indivisible (Deut 6:4)

No internal persons, no incarnation, no divine sonship

Any theology introducing complexity into God’s being violates Sinai’s first principle.

8. The covenant is lived, not believed

Torah emphasizes action, not mental assent

Obedience proves loyalty

Faith without law is meaningless in Tanakh

The NT’s emphasis on belief over observance is, from a Karaite view, a downgrade — not progress.

9. The Sinai Covenant aligns with observable reality

Blessings and curses are tangible (Deut 28)

National restoration is visible

Redemption happens in history, not metaphysics

A covenant whose promises cannot be verified in the world fails Tanakh standards.

10. God swears He will never abandon Israel or Torah

“I will not reject them… nor break My covenant” (Lev 26:44)

“As long as the sun and moon endure” (Jer 31:35–36)

Any claim that God replaced Israel’s covenant contradicts God’s own oath.

Karaite Bottom Line

From a Karaite perspective:

The Sinai Covenant is public

Eternal

Unchangeable

Law-based

Nation-centered

Strictly monotheistic

Confirmed by history

Never revoked

Never superseded

Never redefined

A later message that contradicts Sinai is, by definition, false —

even if it comes with signs, wonders, or sincerity (Deut 13).

Exploring Gordon B. Hinckley’s plea that people should live the Gospel

 From a Karaite (Tanakh-only) perspective, Gordon B. Hinckley’s plea represents a classic example of "Person-Centered Devotion" that shifts the focus from the Creator’s Eternal Law to the emulation of a human figure and a later narrative.

1. The "Luster of His Image" vs. The Image of God

Hinckley suggests that by emulating Jesus, believers take on the "luster of His image."

• The Karaite Audit: The Torah establishes that humans were created in the Image of Elohim (Genesis 1:27). To a Karaite, "reflecting God" is not achieved by imitating the personality of a 1st-century man, but by reflecting God's Holiness through Action.

• The Protocol: In Leviticus 19:2, God says, "You shall be holy, for I, YHWH your God, am holy." He then lists specific laws: honoring parents, keeping Shabbat, and leaving food for the poor. Holiness is a Legal Status achieved through the Mitzvot, not a "luster" gained by following a secondary role model.

2. The "Gospel" vs. The Torah

Hinckley claims the "most precious thing you have is the gospel of Jesus Christ."

• The Refutation: For a Karaite, the most precious thing humanity possesses is the Torah of Moses.

• The Security Filter: Psalm 19:7 states, "The Torah of YHWH is perfect, restoring the soul." If the Law is already "perfect," any "Gospel" added later is, at best, redundant and, at worst, a violation of Deuteronomy 12:32: "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." To a Karaite, a "Gospel" that replaces the Law is a System Downgrade disguised as an upgrade.

3. The "Testimony" Trap

Hinckley urges followers to "Stand by your testimonies"—referring to a subjective, spiritual feeling of truth.

• The Verdict: The Karaite rejects "testimony" (feeling) as a valid source of truth. The only "Testimony" (Edut) recognized in the Tanakh is the Ark of the Testimony containing the Ten Commandments.

• The Danger: Relying on a personal testimony is how people are led into idolatry or following false prophets. $YHVH$ provided an Objective Standard (the Written Text) precisely so that we would not have to rely on the "shifting sands" of our own hearts (Jeremiah 17:9).

---

The Sovereign Verdict

The Karaite refutes the idea that we should "work at" walking as Jesus walked. Instead, we should "work at" walking as $YHVH$ commanded. True faithfulness is not standing by a "testimony" of a person, but standing by the Covenant of Sinai. If you remove the "Gospel" and return to the "Law," you find that the "luster" comes not from a man, but from the Light of the Commandment (Proverbs 6:23).

10 Karaite Reasons Why Jesus Cannot Be the Jewish Messiah

10 Reasons why Jesus can never be the Jewish messiah

1️⃣ The Messiah must fulfill the Torah—not replace it

The Torah is eternal and unchangeable (Deut 4:2; 13:1). Any messiah who introduces a “new covenant” that alters Torah observance fails the test.

2️⃣ The Messiah brings universal peace

Isaiah 2:4 says nations will no longer learn war. The world after Jesus remained violent. A delayed fulfillment is not biblical.

3️⃣ The Messiah gathers all exiles of Israel

Isaiah 11:11–12 requires the physical regathering of Israel. This did not happen in the 1st century.

4️⃣ The Temple must be rebuilt

Ezekiel 37:26–28 links the messianic age with a functioning Temple. Jesus neither rebuilt it nor restored Temple worship.

5️⃣ The Messiah is a human king from David’s line

The Tanakh never teaches a divine messiah. God explicitly says He is not a man (Numbers 23:19).

6️⃣ No dying-and-rising messiah exists in Scripture

The idea of a suffering, executed messiah who returns later is absent from the Tanakh and violates Deut 21:23.

7️⃣ Isaiah 53 describes Israel—not an individual savior

The “servant” is repeatedly identified as Israel (Isaiah 41:8; 49:3). Karaites reject later reinterpretations.

8️⃣ God does not accept human sacrifice for sin

Ezekiel 18:20 rejects vicarious atonement. Each person bears their own guilt.

9️⃣ The Messiah leads Israel to Torah obedience

Deuteronomy 13 warns that even miracle-workers who divert from Torah are false.

🔟 The messianic age is observable, not spiritualized

Knowledge of God must fill the earth (Isaiah 11:9). Invisible fulfillment is not fulfillment.

Karaite conclusion:

The Messiah is tested by results, not belief.

Jesus did not accomplish what the Tanakh requires.

Therefore, by Scripture itself, he cannot be the Jewish Messiah.

#KaraiteView #TanakhOnly #TestTheMessiah #ScriptureOverTradition test.

2️⃣ The Messiah brings universal peace

Isaiah 2:4 says nations will no longer learn war. The world after Jesus remained violent. A delayed fulfillment is not biblical.

3️⃣ The Messiah gathers all exiles of Israel

Isaiah 11:11–12 requires the physical regathering of Israel. This did not happen in the 1st century.

4️⃣ The Temple must be rebuilt

Ezekiel 37:26–28 links the messianic age with a functioning Temple. Jesus neither rebuilt it nor restored Temple worship.

5️⃣ The Messiah is a human king from David’s line

The Tanakh never teaches a divine messiah. God explicitly says He is not a man (Numbers 23:19).

6️⃣ No dying-and-rising messiah exists in Scripture

The idea of a suffering, executed messiah who returns later is absent from the Tanakh and violates Deut 21:23.

7️⃣ Isaiah 53 describes Israel—not an individual savior

The “servant” is repeatedly identified as Israel (Isaiah 41:8; 49:3). Karaites reject later reinterpretations.

8️⃣ God does not accept human sacrifice for sin

Ezekiel 18:20 rejects vicarious atonement. Each person bears their own guilt.

9️⃣ The Messiah leads Israel to Torah obedience

Deuteronomy 13 warns that even miracle-workers who divert from Torah are false.

🔟 The messianic age is observable, not spiritualized

Knowledge of God must fill the earth (Isaiah 11:9). Invisible fulfillment is not fulfillment.

Karaite conclusion:

The Messiah is tested by results, not belief.

Jesus did not accomplish what the Tanakh requires.

Therefore, by Scripture itself, he cannot be the Jewish Messiah.

#KaraiteView #TanakhOnly #TestTheMessiah #ScriptureOverTradition

The Hebrew Scriptures never name future institutions, Instead, they give tests

Here’s a clean refutation from a Karaite viewpoint, staying consistent with Tanakh-centered reasoning and without assuming New Testament authority:

From a Karaite perspective, the entire argument collapses at its foundation—because it assumes the authority of the New Testament and the Church to validate each other. That is circular reasoning, not revelation.

1. The Bible does warn against later religious systems—by principle, not by name

The Hebrew Scriptures never name future institutions. Instead, they give tests. Any system that:

adds new mediators,

claims infallible interpretive authority,

or elevates tradition to binding status

is already condemned (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32).

The Catholic Church fits precisely what the Torah warns against: an authority that claims the right to define doctrine beyond the written word.

2. “Apostolic succession” mirrors the Oral Law problem Karaites reject Rabbinic Judaism not because Moses didn’t exist—but because later authorities claimed Moses’ authority for their traditions. The Catholic claim is structurally identical: “Trust us, we carry the apostles’ authority.”

But Scripture warns: authority is validated by faithfulness to God’s word, not by institutional continuity (Isaiah 8:20).

3. Matthew and Acts are not evidence to Karaites Quoting Matthew, Acts, or Timothy assumes what must be proven. Karaites do not accept the New Testament as inspired Scripture. You cannot use internal Church documents to prove the Church’s divine authority—just as the Talmud cannot prove itself.

4. “The Church as pillar of truth” contradicts Tanakh The Tanakh says God’s Torah is truth (Psalm 119:142), not an institution.

Jeremiah 8:8 explicitly warns that scribes can corrupt God’s law. No human body is immune from error—history proves this.

5. Longevity and martyrdom do not equal truth False systems can last centuries (Jeremiah 44; Ezekiel 8). Widespread obedience never validated idolatry then, and it does not validate ecclesiastical authority now.

6. God’s covenant is with Israel, not an ecclesiastical hierarchy The Tanakh never anticipates a universal Church replacing Israel or acting as guardian of revelation. God speaks through His written Torah, not through councils, creeds, or bishops.

Conclusion (Karaite view):

The Bible does not warn against “leaving the apostolic Church” because the Tanakh knows nothing of it. What Scripture does warn against is elevating human authority, tradition, and institutions above the written word of God.

Truth is tested by Scripture alone—not by succession, age, or power.

What the Bible say about marriage

Here’s a clear, Scripture-anchored comment that answers the claim directly, without drifting into church doctrine or modern assumptions—very much in line with a Karaite, Tanakh-first reading:

This statement collapses once we actually let the Tanakh speak for itself.

In Scripture, marriage is not defined by a ceremony, contract, or later religious framework—it is consistently described through union, consummation, and household formation.

Again and again the text says some version of:

“He knew his wife, and she conceived.”

That language is not incidental. It is the biblical marker that a marital union has occurred.

Consider the patriarchs:

Isaac took Rebekah, she became his wife, and he knew her (Genesis 24:67)

Jacob went in to Leah and Rachel, and they bore children

No priest, no vows, no covenant formula is narrated—yet Scripture unambiguously calls them wives

The Torah never presents marriage as an abstract covenant detached from physical union. In fact, sexual union is the act that establishes the marital bond, not something separate from it.

That does not mean sex is casual or meaningless—quite the opposite. The Tanakh treats it as powerful and binding, which is why adultery is condemned and why sexual boundaries matter so much.

Calling sex and marriage unrelated is not biblical caution; it’s a post-biblical redefinition. Scripture does not separate what it repeatedly joins.

If marriage were purely a covenant independent of union, the Torah would say so plainly. Instead, it consistently shows marriage recognized through taking, knowing, and building a household.

So the issue isn’t that Scripture is unclear.

It’s that later theology has tried to sanitize, formalize, or abstract what the Tanakh presents as concrete and embodied.

Read the text closely.

The pattern is there—over and over.