How to identify a false Christ, Teacher, Prophet

[bible_student]

This is a crucial part that Christians refuse to understand. They want our Saviour's explicit words that condemn the beliefs, scriptures and traditions of old...

Christ most certainly did not condemn the scriptures of old (the Torah). He condemned the Talmud ("traditions of the elders") ONLY. This is crystal clear when you read the Gospels, not once did Jesus condemn or speak against the scriptures, but He did at every opportunity condemn the traditions of men (Talmud). For instance:

Matthew
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the Tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud).

So clearly, Christ came to uphold The Law of God at every instance, but He condemned the scribes and pharisees for oppressing the people, because they followed their own made-up traditions (Talmud) and NOT the Torah (Scriptures that were GIVEN).

To be confused on this issue is very dangerous because it means you won't correctly understand what Christ actually came to do.

Matthew
23:1 Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2 Saying, The lawyers and the politicians sit in Moses' Law seat:
23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe of God's Law, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their example: for they say, and do not (and make up their own laws against God's Orders - Deut. 4:2).
23:4 For they bind heavy burdens (the Talmud) and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not lift one of their fingers to remove them.
King of kings' Bible

 

[bible_student]

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
King of kings' Bible

 

[phipps]

When Jesus says He did not come to destroy He means He did not come to attack the scriptures or beliefs of the people that came before Him, because His mission is to convert them. And one doesn't need conversion when they belief in His prophecy, he simply needs to be convinced that it's Him that's been prophesied. That's why you may use new scripture as a lense for old scripture because the Gospel makes you understand its true meaning.

This is a crucial part that Christians refuse to understand. They want our Saviour's explicit words that condemn the beliefs, scriptures and traditions of old in order for it to be proven false while His mission to convert consists of rendering things good, not to incite hostility among lost sheep and keep or drive them into the hands of Satan's clergy (the Pharisee / the Jew). If that's the case why did He not condemn the Greeks for worshipping multiple deities, including Apollo, Yahweh's Greek counterpart? He did not therefore he approves?

Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God"

Most recent versions have poorly translated this part. The "inspired by God" is used in the original Koine Greek as an adjective (= θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, God-breathed). Therefore the verb "is" has been incorrectly added. The accurate translation is "All scripture inspired by God" or "All God-breathed scripture", which changes the entire meaning. Versions like the Douay-Rheims, the English translation of the Aramaic Bible and the American Standard are versions who have this meaning correct.

The "Us" in the old scriptures refers to the Lord of Hosts and his Host. It's El and his Divine Council (70 sons and daughters / angels). Others claim it's the "royal We" from semitic tradition. But in neither case does it allude to the Trinity.

When Jesus says He did not come to destroy He means He did not come to attack the scriptures or beliefs of the people that came before Him, because His mission is to convert them.

You forget Jesus is God. He created this world and He used the prophets and writers of the Old Testament to pass on His Word to His people who were at the time the Jews. In the New Testament Jesus quotes the prophets and even rebukes the Jews and their leaders for rejecting Him and the prophets. The very prophets you're dismissing. Some of the prophecies of the prophets in the Old Testament came true in Jesus time. Certainly those about His birth, ministry and death.

" “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” " Matthew 23:37-39.

" “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Matthew 24:15-16.

So Jesus says He did not come to destroy the prophets because that is exactly what He did not come to do. He came to fulfill some of their prophecies and to prove the prophets true. Everything Jesus taught was in harmony with what the prophets taught too.

And one doesn't need conversion when they belief in His prophecy, he simply needs to be convinced that it's Him that's been prophesied. That's why you may use new scripture as a lense for old scripture because the Gospel makes you understand its true meaning.

I believe and many in Jesus' day believed Jesus was prophesied because it was the truth. Why did God communicate through the prophets? Well, He tells us. Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets." Paul the apostle commands us in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 not to despise or reject prophets and the gift of prophecy. God through the prophets tried to convince His people in the Old Testament that they needed a conversion and a relationship with God in order to be saved and have eternal life. If we didn't have the Old Testament how could we understand the Gospel? Jesus and the apostles refer to the Old Testament a lot.

This is a crucial part that Christians refuse to understand. They want our Saviour's explicit words that condemn the beliefs, scriptures and traditions of old in order for it to be proven false while His mission to convert consists of rendering things good, not to incite hostility among lost sheep and keep or drive them into the hands of Satan's clergy (the Pharisee / the Jew). If that's the case why did He not condemn the Greeks for worshipping multiple deities, including Apollo, Yahweh's Greek counterpart? He did not therefore he approves?

You are wrong. God Always rebukes sin. He is not afraid to call out wrong. He hates sin and falsity. He would never push it aside because He needed to convert people. He certainly had no problem rebuking the Jewish leaders and He told them to their faces that the Gospel was going to another nation because they'd rejected Him and the prophets for years. He had no problem telling the crowd who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery to throw the first stone if they'd never sinned. He told the woman caught committing adultery that she should go and sin no more.

Jesus never condemned the Old Testament, because He agreed with it. He even quoted the Old Testament because In Jesus' day the New Testament did not exist. The text coloured red will be Jesus' Words in the New Testament and the text coloured blue will be from the Old Testament.

Luke 4:4, "But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”
Deuteronomy 8:3, "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord."

Matthew 22:37–39, "Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "
Deuteronomy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."
Leviticus 19:18, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."

Luke 4:17-19, 21, "And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Isaiah 61:1–2, " “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn."

Mark 7:6–7, "He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ "
Isaiah 29:13, "Therefore the Lord said:
“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men."

There are many more verses like this in the New Testament not just by Jesus but by the apostles too quoting the Old Testament.

Jesus did not preach to the Greeks did He? He preached mainly to Jews and He told them what they were doing wrong. If He had preached to the Greeks He would have told them its wrong to have any other gods except Him. The apostles who preached in those parts of the world especially Paul told them it was wrong to have multiple deities. Jesus used the apostles to preach the Gospel around the world in His name.

Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is inspired by God"

Most recent versions have poorly translated this part. The "inspired by God" is used in the original Koine Greek as an adjective (= θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, God-breathed). Therefore the verb "is" has been incorrectly added. The accurate translation is "All scripture inspired by God" or "All God-breathed scripture", which changes the entire meaning. Versions like the Douay-Rheims, the English translation of the Aramaic Bible and the American Standard are versions who have this meaning correct.

You can twist it which ever way you want to, but "All Scripture is inspired by God" in the Old and New Testaments. That is why its in harmony unless people twist His Word. Also Jesus' actions and words that prove that too. And His actions and Words are very clear.

The "Us" in the old scriptures refers to the Lord of Hosts and his Host. It's El and his Divine Council (70 sons and daughters / angels). Others claim it's the "royal We" from semitic tradition. But in neither case does it allude to the Trinity.

You know that's not true and its not in harmony with the Bible. The "Us" in Genesis 1:26-27 for example is talking about the three persons who created this world. No one but God can create anything. Also the Hebrew word for God is Elohim which is a word in plural. Therefore the word Elohim indicates that it was more than one that took part in the creation.

What about all the other times the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were mentioned separately in the Old Testament? What about the prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament? What about the verses where God speaks to another person and that person is also called God or Lord? Are you going to ignore all those verses to stick to your view that the Godhead is not mentioned in the Old Testament?

 

[Artful Revealer]

Since I do not shave or cut my body's hair (Num. 6) the corners of it have indeed grown to be long.
This body's hair is not to be meddled with.

Yes, I do use salt with my meals.

Yes. I no longer eat shellfish, or any pork [YUCK] (which are both very unhealthy for the body).

Striving and learning as I go.

If you love God then you will want to keep His Commandments and do His Will.

As above.

With God ALL things are possible (as Christ has told you).

Good on you for living up to your principles. But make sure not to follow in the Pharisees' footsteps. I will explain why in the next post.

Without the Law, sin doesn't exist.

Yes it does. The Law was therefore given, BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS (Gal. 3:19).

Let me rephrase that. The knowledge of sin was made known through the law. Before the law, its subjects did not know what sin was. If one doesn't know what sin is, if one doesn't have knowledge of good and evil, how can they be punished? If a toddler jabs his finger in his sister's eye he can't be punished, for he didn't know it was wrong. If he is made aware of the wrongdoing (or becomes aware himself by the pain he has inflicted) yet grows up and repeats the offense, he has no excuse. Knowledge of good and evil are required to live a moral life. This is what's wrong with the orthodox interpretation of Eden: a moral life equals blind submission to authority, instead of behaving according to universal moral standards. The only compromise here is if the law of the authority and the authority's behaviour are coherent with universal moral standards, which they're not.

The Law makes sin come alive and thus kills you, because we are all sinners.

It makes you aware of what sin is, so that you can then see it and begin working with God on changing your ways (repent).

Yes, this is what I meant.

The Law lays sin bare. It's knowledge of evil. At best the Law serves as a parapet to keep you from falling off the balcony.

Not so - you should read Psalms:
19:7 The Law of the "I AM" [is] Perfect, converting the soul: The Covenant of the "I AM" [is] sure, making wise the simple.
19:8 The Statutes of the "I AM" [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the Commandment of the "I AM" [is] pure, enlightening the eyes.
19:9 The fear of the "I AM" [is] clean, enduring for ever: the Judgments of the "I AM" [are] True [and] Righteous altogether.
19:10 More to be desired [are they] than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
19:11 Moreover by them is Thy servant warned: [and] in keeping of them [there is] great reward.

It does - see Psalms 19:7 above.

The psalms are poetic exaltation. They are not Logos, this isn't the Word of God. Any pious man will exalt their god, whichever deity that god may be. Many psalms are derived from the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, hymns in praise of Baal.

Not to mention that the neighbour in loving your neighbour under the Law of Christ meant everyone, not "fellow Israelite blood-kin" like in the OT

You have misread it. It clearly says do not oppress the stranger, because you yourselves were strangers once in the land of Egypt (slavery) and God COMMANDS you this:

Exodus
22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus
19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the "I AM".

The stranger (ie. non-Israelite) never had any legal protection under the old law. It is said to be kind to him, but sin was not followed up by any form of punishment.

The neighbour or brother however (ie. the "children of thy people", the fellow Israelite) did have legal protection under the law and any offense committed to an Israelite would be met with severe repercussions.

Deuteronomy 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear [the causes] between your brethren, and judge righteously between [every] man and his brother, and the stranger [that is] with him.

The judges were appointed by Moses as leaders of the Israelites. The judges of Israel serve as judicial government and hence judge between members of the nation (tribes of Israel) they govern. They must judge fairly between "every man and brother", between fellow Israelites, for it would not mention "and the stranger with him" if it didn't. The stranger with him refers to the non-Israelite that is the property of an Israelite, namely his slave.

24:21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean [it] afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
24:22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I COMMAND THEE to do this thing.

Same thing. Privilege for the Israelite to eat the fruits of the tree before handing the leftovers to the stranger, widow and orphan and giving them a taste.

 

[bible_student]

Good on you for living up to your principles. But make sure not to follow in the Pharisees' footsteps. I will explain why in the next post.

Let me rephrase that. The knowledge of sin was made known through the law. Before the law, its subjects did not know what sin was. If one doesn't know what sin is, if one doesn't have knowledge of good and evil, how can they be punished? If a toddler jabs his finger in his sister's eye he can't be punished, for he didn't know it was wrong. If he is made aware of the wrongdoing (or becomes aware himself by the pain he has inflicted) yet grows up and repeats the offense, he has no excuse. Knowledge of good and evil are required to live a moral life. This is what's wrong with the orthodox interpretation of Eden: a moral life equals blind submission to authority, instead of behaving according to universal moral standards. The only compromise here is if the law of the authority and the authority's behaviour are coherent with universal moral standards, which they're not.

Yes, this is what I meant.

The psalms are poetic exaltation. They are not Logos, this isn't the Word of God. Any pious man will exalt their god, whichever deity that god may be. Many psalms are derived from the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, hymns in praise of Baal.

The stranger (ie. non-Israelite) never had any legal protection under the old law. It is said to be kind to him, but sin was not followed up by any form of punishment.

The neighbour or brother however (ie. the "children of thy people", the fellow Israelite) did have legal protection under the law and any offense committed to an Israelite would be met with severe repercussions.

The judges were appointed by Moses as leaders of the Israelites. The judges of Israel serve as judicial government and hence judge between members of the nation (tribes of Israel) they govern. They must judge fairly between "every man and brother", between fellow Israelites, for it would not mention "and the stranger with him" if it didn't. The stranger with him refers to the non-Israelite that is the property of an Israelite, namely his slave.

Same thing. Privilege for the Israelite to eat the fruits of the tree before handing the leftovers to the stranger, widow and orphan and giving them a taste.

While some of what you say can be agreed with, I cannot agree with all of it. Regarding the Psalms, for instance. Also in the Quran for instance it states that the Psalms were given to David (by inspiration). Reading Psalm 22 and then follow it up by reading Matthew 27 should probably be enough to be able to establish this as fact and do it beyond any shadow of a doubt for most.

Regarding the strangers (immigrants) of the land, yes they did not immediately get to have all the same privileges as born Israelites. However, if they stayed and learned to keep The Law then eventually (even if it took some a certain number of generations) they themselves became grafted in and became full Israelites and would then have the same privileges as any of the others. There is another factor that when accepted, makes complete sense of why this is so and makes the beauty and the wisdom of God's Law even more plainly clear and apparent, but, sadly most christians won't even consider this, even though the teaching of it was a widely accepted part of early Christianity (pre Roman Catholic) and can still be found in the Bible if one is willing to look for it.

But basically, the conclusion you get to is that everything (really everything) in The Law is for the very best of ALL concerned, in each and every circumstance. But, from a human point of view that is not always easy to see at first, until it can finally be seen and understood spiritually, that God's Law (in the Torah) is indeed PERFECT in all aspects.

Paul, perhaps able to see and understand it therefore was able to write -
Romans 7:12 Wherefore The Law [is] holy, and the Commandment holy, and just, and good.

It's never The Law that is wrong; its people that are wrong and not thinking right (not spiritually straight). But God see Perfectly what is best for everyone involved, not only for the individual. And when followed, in the end (and in the shorted possible amount of time) everything works out perfectly fair and for the best for everyone. But to see this, you have to be able to consider it working out over not just one lifetime, but over the span of multiple lifetimes for the individuals living within it.

P.S. Based on what I believe I may see in part what your pov appears to be, I've slightly revised my initial response to you a few posts back. It took me time to see it, but God's Law in the Torah is actually perfectly just (even for the stranger) but human eyes have difficulty seeing it, because from a purely human point of view, it seems unfair and doesn't make sense, because the human thinks there is only one lifetime - its present one. But when looked at from a spiritual point of view, and realising that there is not just one single lifetime, then The Law begins to make perfect sense.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Christ most certainly did not condemn the scriptures of old (the Torah). He condemned the Talmud ("traditions of the elders") ONLY. This is crystal clear when you read the Gospels, not once did Jesus condemn or speak against the scriptures, but He did at every opportunity condemn the traditions of men (Talmud). For instance:

Matthew
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the Tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud).

So clearly, Christ came to uphold The Law of God at every instance, but He condemned the scribes and pharisees for oppressing the people, because they followed their own made-up traditions (Talmud) and NOT the Torah (Scriptures that were GIVEN).

The Talmud did not yet exist. The Talmud was written between the 2nd and 6th century AD. The scriptures of the Torah had already been written a thousand years prior to the Talmud's completion. The authors of the Talmud were descendants of the Pharisees, through Yohanan Ben Zakkai who escaped Jerusalem when Edom crushed Jacob in 70AD. The Pharisees were the priestly class that controlled the Israelite cult for centuries prior to Christ's descent. They were known for their emphatic dedication to upholding all the laws, including the washing of hands before eating bread, and imposing their superiority over their subjects because they live up to the vain, superficial and materialistic rituals that give them that self-righteousness.

For this, but not only this, they were condemned by Christ. When Jesus says "by your tradition", He's clearly not referring to the Talmud, since the Talmud did not yet exist. He's referring to the very kind of law that the Pharisees asked Him about (washing of hands). When He says "by your tradition", He means the tradition of the Jews to keep what they perceived as the greatest of the commandments, the aforementioned vain, superficial and materialist works to glorify themselves in the eyes of the beholder, yet complete illiterates in upholding what they perceived as the least of the commandments, ie. the moral commandments.

Ecclesiasticus 32:23 In every good work trust thy own soul; for this is the keeping of the commandments.

So when you say this:

Christ did not change the Moral Law in any way

As a matter of fact, He has. He has only given moral laws which means all the laws that were not moral have become obsolete / irrelevant because it is not in matter and body that you will find redemption, but in the union of your soul and spirit. The World is not structured by matter but by the spirit. The Logos is that which brings Order in the Spirit. It's not that which brings Chaos in Matter. (like unshaven body hair)

He added a spiritual dimension to it, along with having made animal sacrifices and the priesthood obsolete, through His Sacrifice on the Cross and having replaced that with following His Example and teaching of daily "self" sacrifice (of the human-animal side, i.e. the human "self" and it's selfishness) for the good of all and with Himself as the ONLY High Priest for ever.

So it's not just animal sacrifice that He made obsolete. His own sacrifice was not the result of foreshadowing of the lamb sacrifices the Jews perform during Passover, it's mirroring what the Jews did to replace wickedness with virtue. Instead of mankind shedding the blood of lambs to grant their Baal power and everlasting life, The Lamb of God shed His blood to grant power and everlasting life to mankind. It's Good defeating Evil, it's the Christ tricking the Devil. It's the antithesis, not the apotheosis.

To be confused on this issue is very dangerous because it means you won't correctly understand what Christ actually came to do.

Matthew
23:1 Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2 Saying, The lawyers and the politicians sit in Moses' Law seat:
23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe of God's Law, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their example: for they say, and do not (and make up their own laws against God's Orders - Deut. 4:2).
23:4 For they bind heavy burdens (the Talmud) and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not lift one of their fingers to remove them.
King of kings' Bible

The Talmud did not yet exist, ergo, the God's Law they bid consisted of laws written in their holy book by the lying pen of the scribes and Pharisees. You need not look any further than the Torah.

 

[bible_student]

The Talmud did not yet exist. The Talmud was written between the 2nd and 6th century AD.

It did exist and Christ called it by name (traditions of the elders). That is what Talmud means. It's called the Babylonian Talmud because they were already writing it (or at a minimum following and developing it as an oral tradition of the personal OPINIONS of the rabbis - not the actual Torah) since back in the day in Babylon.

including the washing of hands before eating bread,

Which is not a Law given anywhere in the Bible but came from their Babylonian (and/or Jerusalem) Talmud tradition ("traditions of the elders") - their false legislation. Legislation is prohibited in the Torah - Deut. 4:2

They were known for their emphatic dedication to upholding all the laws

This is not true either. As Christ confirmed:
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the Law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the Law? Why go ye about to kill me?
They NEVER kept The Law, ever.
What they followed was their tradition (Talmud) which they wrote to be able to break The Law (Torah) as also previously shown when an example of this was quoted.

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the "Traditions" of my fathers (the Talmud).

The Law (Torah - God's Law) is not the traditions Paul is referring to. Talmud means "traditions", not "The Law". Torah means "The Law".

When Jesus says "by your tradition", He's clearly not referring to the Talmud, since the Talmud did not yet exist.

Again this is not true. The word Talmud means "traditions".
As above, they had already been making up the Talmudic Jewish traditions AT LEAST since Babylonian captivity (which is why it is called the Babylonian Talmud) which was before Christ came.

He's referring to the very kind of law that the Pharisees asked Him about (washing of hands).

Which is not in the Bible (not in the Torah).

When He says "by your tradition", He means the tradition of the Jews to keep what they perceived as the greatest of the commandments, the aforementioned vain, superficial and materialist works to glorify themselves in the eyes of the beholder, yet complete illiterates in upholding what they perceived as the least of the commandments, ie. the moral commandments.

Because they were following the Talmudic traditions (which is their own opinions) and not the Torah.
They wrote (first by teaching it orally - the oral "traditions" of the rabbis that gives their opinions and then eventually later compiled it in writing) the Talmud to be able to not have to follow the Torah implicitly, because it commands them to share equally with others and does not allow them to enrich themselves above others and which says that God's Law is for everyone, which they hate because it prohibits usury (and today they are the banksters - their system thrives on usury and fractional reserve banking - which is fraud). Also, The Torah commands the Jubilee be kept (redistribution of the wealth every 50 years) and Commands the complete forgiveness of everyone's debt every 7 years. Their Babylonian market system (satanic) however, could not exist under God's Law, so, they had to make up their own legislation that became the Talmud to make the satanic Babylonian "Beast" market system a reality (which it has - as today).

As a matter of fact, He has.

No, He has not. All of the Moral Law is still exactly the same as it ever was and it always will be (eternally). Christ said so, see Matt. 5:16-20

So it's not just animal sacrifice that He made obsolete.

The Moral Law remains unchanged forever, according to Christ (Who is The Lawgiver) and Who was with and went with Moses and the Israelites through the desert:
Hebrews
3:14 For we are made sharers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end;
3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
3:17 But with whom was He grieved forty years? [Was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
13:8 Christ the Saviour the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The Talmud did not yet exist

It did (at least orally if not yet in writing).

You cannot escape God's Law, because if you will not Live by The Law, then you will die by The Law. Please read Malachi 4 +

Deuteronomy
30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the "I AM" thy God, to walk in His Ways, and to keep His Commandments and His Statutes and His Judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the "I AM" thy God shall bless thee in the land where thou goest to possess it.
30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, where thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

the God's Law they bid consisted of laws written in their holy book by the lying pen of the scribes and Pharisees. You need not look any further than the Torah.

If that was so (which it is not) then Jesus would have said so, instead of which, He ALWAYS upheld the Commandments found in God's Law, and used them in the Gospels to denounce the Talmud with. It's there, you cannot escape or deny this fact, you can quote any scripture you want, there is no other option. We either go back to keeping God's Laws in the Torah, and Live, or we don't do it, in which case God has told us on the last page of the old testament, that He is going to burn up everyone who refuses to do so. There is no other option found in all of scripture.

 

[bible_student]

@Artful Revealer
In the Quran there is also further confirmation given that the Torah (but not the Talmud) did indeed come from God and not to doubt it:

Sura
32:22. And who does more wrong than one to whom are recited the Signs of his Lord, and who then turns away therefrom? Verily from those who transgress We shall exact (due) Retribution.
32:23. We did indeed aforetime give the Book (Torah) to Moses: be then NOT IN DOUBT of its (The Torah) reaching (THEE): and We made it a Guide to the Children of Israel.

Further, I also believe the Book (Torah) given to Moses to in fact be Extraterrestrial in origin (not from this world) because after all, Christ did say it, that He is "not from this world". The Law teaches us unselfishness and what true love towards others means, and that is completely alien to humans.

Romans
13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled The Law.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie), Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as [or more than] thyself.
13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of The Law.
King of kings' Bible

 

[Artful Revealer]

Where's your evidence that the Talmud was already taking shape in oral form prior to 70AD? And how do you know that the written form matches the oral transmissions that preceded it?

The Talmud does not mean tradition. Its meaning is similar to the Torah's, ie. "instruction", but more in the sense of understanding the instruction (learn, study) rather than receiving the instruction.

The Talmud was written by the descendants of the Pharisees because it was the only major sect that survived the destruction of Jerusalem. The Pharisees arose in the second century during the Hasmonean dynasty and everyone agrees they were known for their scrupulous and demanding (of all Jews) obedience to the purity laws (like the washing of hands) in both religious and private life, which gave them an exalted status among laymen.

The washing of hands was a law given through Moses to the descendance of Aaron (Ex 30:18-19). The priestly class, the Kohen, from the same root as the names of their ancestors, the Kenites, (tribe of Moses and Jethro), which in turn are named after their eponymous ancestor Cain (which is why Jesus said to the priests "You are of your father the devil ..." John 8:44) , were the descendants of Moses' brother. In fact, it was a requirement to be of direct patrilineal Aaronic descent to become member of that priestly class. The law of the washing of hands comes from the Torah, not the Talmud, because the Talmud did not exist.

This is not true either. As Christ confirmed:
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the Law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the Law? Why go ye about to kill me?
They NEVER kept The Law, ever.
What they followed was their tradition (Talmud) which they wrote to be able to break The Law (Torah) as also previously shown when an example of this was quoted.

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the "Traditions" of my fathers (the Talmud).

The Law (Torah - God's Law) is not the traditions Paul is referring to. Talmud means "traditions", not "The Law". Torah means "The Law".

Obviously, the traditions Paul mentioned did refer to the Torah, because the Talmud did not yet exist. Paul said "the letter kills" and your example shows why.

Jesus in John 7:19 is pointing at their hypocrisy for wanting to kill Jesus because Jesus didn't follow Moses' law, their law, when he healed a man on Sabbath. "One work I have done", He said (John 7:21), a transgression of Moses' law according to the Jews. Yet work is allowed in order not to break Moses' law when one must be circumcised. So "they wonder". They wonder because they can't place Jesus' good act in light of their law. The Law makes them blind from seeing Good. The blindness of those under the law is even better illustrated in the antithetical nature of these works, for the Jews think that, on Sabbath, making a man unwhole (cutting off a piece) is good, while making a man whole (healing) is bad. The new law is again mirroring the old law. It's the antitheses. Judge according to the appearance, you die. You follow the letter, you die.

As above, they had already been making up the Talmudic Jewish traditions AT LEAST since Babylonian captivity (which is why it is called the Babylonian Talmud) which was before Christ came.

The Babylonian Talmud is called Babylonian because it was written between the 3rd and 6th century in ... Babylonia, now called Iraq. This is a 1,000 years after the captivity you mention.

They wrote (first by teaching it orally - the oral "traditions" of the rabbis that gives their opinions and then eventually later compiled it in writing) the Talmud to be able to not have to follow the Torah implicitly, because it commands them to share equally with others and does not allow them to enrich themselves above others and which says that God's Law is for everyone, which they hate because it prohibits usury (and today they are the banksters - their system thrives on usury and fractional reserve banking - which is fraud). Also, The Torah commands the Jubilee be kept (redistribution of the wealth every 50 years) and Commands the complete forgiveness of everyone's debtevery 7 years. Their Babylonian market system (satanic) however, could not exist under God's Law, so, they had to make up their own legislation that became the Talmud to make the satanic Babylonian "Beast" market system a reality (which it has - as today).

The Law of the Torah is for the Israelites, not everyone. Usury is not permitted when it's used against a fellow Israelite. It is permitted against the goy. This is what you're seeing right now, the banksters indebting the goy nations of the world to make them slaves. Just as Satan uses sin as a currency to make slaves of our souls.

The Jubilee and "remission of debt", is again, only among Israelites.

If that was so (which it is not) then Jesus would have said so, instead of which, He ALWAYS upheld the Commandments found in God's Law, and used them in the Gospels to denounce the Talmud with. It's there, you cannot escape or deny this fact, you can quote any scripture you want, there is no other option. We either go back to keeping God's Laws in the Torah, and Live, or we don't do it, in which case God has told us on the last page of the old testament, that He is going to burn up everyone who refuses to do so. There is no other option found in all of scripture.

The scripture you brought up (John 7) already concerns one of Jesus' transgressions of the law. So your entire point here is mute.

 

[bible_student]

The traditions of the rabbis existed already and the proof is in the Gospel accounts, shown by Jesus contrasting the pharisees traditions to the actual given Torah. That is all the proof that is needed:

Mark
7:1 Then came together unto him the politicians, and certain of the lawyers, which came from Jerusalem.
7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
7:3 For the politicians, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the "Tradition of the Elders" (Talmud).
7:4 And [when they come] from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
7:5 Then the politicians and lawyers asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the "Tradition of the Elders" (Talmud), but eat bread with unwashen hands?
7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is FAR from me.
7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
7:8 For laying aside the COMMANDment of God, ye hold the "Tradition" of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the COMMANDment of God, that ye may keep your own "Tradition".
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free].
7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
7:13 Making the Word of God of no effect through your "Tradition" (Talmud), which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
King of kings' Bible.

The Talmud is a huge volume of the rabbis writings (their opinions and interpretations of The Law - which is FORBIDDEN):

Deut. 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

The Talmud adds their opinions (the opinion of men) to it, which is forbidden in the Torah. And they didn't just sit down at a table after 70AD and say, lets write a Talmud. It was their long held traditions of the rabbis that they wrote down probably because it had grown to become too much to remember orally (as well as for the other reasons mentioned - to start the tradition of legislating, which today has enslaved everyone to man-made laws).

The Law in Exodus 30:18-19 was concerning the sons of Aaron, so they would wash themselves and be clean before they would enter into the tabernacle to be in God's Presence. It does not say people must ritually wash their hands before being allowed to eat bread, as they were telling people. The rabbis did everything just for show and always lost the true meaning. The rabbis were adding their interpretation to The Law (which is a forbidden practice - Deut. 4:2)

 

[bible_student]

Definition of Talmud
: the authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising the Mishnah and Gemara
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Talmud

 

[Artful Revealer]

Definition of Talmud
: the authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising the Mishnah and Gemara
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Talmud

From your source:

History and Etymology for Talmud
Late Hebrew talmūdh, literally, instruction

You can't just add Talmud in brackets next to scripture. The "traditions of men" Jesus refers to were already part of scripture. He calls out the "lying pen of the scribes". The scribes are they who write the scriptures. They are not they who talk about the scriptures.

 

[bible_student]

From your source:

History and Etymology for Talmud
Late Hebrew talmūdh, literally, instruction

You can't just add Talmud in brackets next to scripture. The "traditions of men" Jesus refers to were already part of scripture. He calls out the "lying pen of the scribes". The scribes are they who write the scriptures. They are not they who talk about the scriptures.

Yes but whose instruction? It's not God's, but the instruction of the rabbis
http://jahtruth.net/rabbis

Jeremiah 8:8 is the verse often pointed to by muslims as supposedly proving the Bible has been corrupted. However, this is not the case:

"It is important to look at the context. The above verses are part of Jeremiah's "Temple Address" in Jeremiah 7:1-10:25. The first important clue is that God through the prophet Jeremiah states in verse 7: "My people do not KNOW the requirements of the LORD.” He does NOT say that they do not HAVE them. Then in verse 8, he takes up the false security of those scribes who claim that they have the law, although they do not obey it and distort it with their false interpretations. The next verse gives us the context of how legitimate these scribes were: "The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?” (Jeremiah 8:9)

It is surprising that somehow our Muslim friends ignore the context in verse 9. The accusation is that the scribes in Jeremiah’s time falsely handled Scripture by rejecting the word of the Lord. In the context of Jeremiah 7-10, we find what this “lying pen” is all about. The context does not say their lying pens are making the Torah into a lie by altering its text. It says they are writing things that are false, as though they came from God's law, and teaching them to the people.

These lying teachers were telling the people "peace, peace" although Jeremiah, the true prophet, told them there is no peace and will be no peace. God has announced His judgment on Jerusalem for its idolatry and disobedience. The enemies are coming and God will NOT help. This happened; the enemies came and God did not help them defeat their enemies.

This verse has nothing to do with altering the books; it has to do with certain scribes teaching false practices and giving false prophecies, claiming them to be based on the Lord's law. The law of God, which clearly speaks of punishment for sin, is disregarded. The people are told about the promises of God's goodness -- which are in the Law too, but each has the condition: obedience to God’s laws."
http://jesustomuslims.org/articles/does-jeremiah-88-imply-bible-corrupted

It is evident throughout ALL of the prophets that Israel never fully kept themselves from deviating from The Law, at least never for very long. But even a partial obedience to The Law caused Israel to be Blessed by God. All the prophets said the same thing, return to The Law, including Jeremiah. So, this lone verse of Jeremiah 8:8 used out of context can in no way even reasonably be seen as to imply that the Torah has been corrupted, because God simply would not allow it. It's His Law and it's a simple task for Him to preserve HIS LAW that was given to all of mankind to live by.

Jeremiah 16:11 Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken Me, saith the "I AM", and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken Me, and have not kept My Law;

Jeremiah
26:2 Thus saith the "I AM"; Stand in the court of the "I AM"'s House, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the "I AM"'s House, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
26:3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent Me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
26:4 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the "I AM"; If ye will not hearken to Me, to walk in My Law, which I have set before you,
26:5 To hearken to the words of My servants the Prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending [them], but ye have not hearkened;
26:6 Then will I make this House like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.

We have it from God Himself that His Law is (and always will remain) fully intact.

True Israel was (and still is) supposed to keep The Law and set the world an example, showing the Blessings that come from God for keeping it. Then, the other nations would see this and want to join, and they would then be allowed if they agreed to also keep The Law. This is the "grafting in" process that was supposed to take place, until Israel spread over the whole world and everyone is keeping The Commandments, at which point there would be no more problems on earth.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Jeremiah doesn't prove the scriptures have been corrupted, neither does it proof they haven't. Neither is Jeremiah my basis for claiming that.

 

[bible_student]

"...This verse has nothing to do with altering the books; it has to do with certain scribes teaching false practices and giving false prophecies, claiming them to be based on the Lord's law. The law of God, which clearly speaks of punishment for sin, is disregarded. The people are told about the promises of God's goodness -- which are in the Law too, but each has the condition: obedience to God’s laws.

In this passage, they were claiming to be wise because they have the law, but God says that they have handled it falsely by false application of it. Rejecting here implies not following the instructions. It is important to note that almost 200 years after Jeremiah, people had access to the Torah, the Law, which shows that it was not corrupted. For instance, we find this written in the book of Nehemiah:

“They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read … On the second day … they gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law. They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to … Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God …” (Nehemiah 8:13-14,18)

Now for Ezra to read from the Law of Moses and expound on it presupposes that a true, uncorrupted copy of the Torah was available at that time.

Fast forward to the days of Jesus and his followers, we find they quoted from the Torah, as we know it today, and never assumed that it was corrupt (see Matthew 4:4,7:10; 22:31-32; 1 Timothy 5:18). Jesus never doubted the Torah or the books of the prophets or Psalms being corrupted. In fact, we find passages within the Bible that show that the word of God is not changed. Jesus for example says that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He said that not one jot or tittle would disappear from the law (Matthew 5:18).

So the only credible appropriate meaning is that the scribes were misleading the people, either through their oral teachings or were writing down erroneous interpretations of the Law. A similar situation existed in the time of Jesus Christ. He delivered a similar judgment against the scribes as recorded in Matthew 23, for example, Jesus said, 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:2-3)

Jesus would never have told the people to listen to the teachers of the Law if the very law they were teaching had been changed and was not as pure as God gave it. No, textual corruption was not an issue at all.

Arguing from the passage in Jeremiah 8 that the Torah is “corrupted” in its text would be going against the testimony of Jesus, against the testimony of the whole of God's prophets, and is an argument from silence, since it does not say so at all. The context makes it fully clear that this speaks about false interpretation and application of the word of God.

It is therefore quite clear that Jeremiah was rebuking the scribes for their traditions that led people astray from the word of God. They were manipulating the law to try to get it to fit their lifestyles and to make justifications for their sin, thus seeing the Law as being a mere code of ceremonial observances.

If Jewish people had corrupted the Scriptures, they would have taken out the bad and ugly things they have done. However, the bad and ugly things the Children of Israel have done, plus God's warnings to them and His punishing their disobedience, are recorded for all posterity to see."

http://jesustomuslims.org/articles/does-jeremiah-88-imply-bible-corrupted

 

[bible_student]

Do Jews follow the Talmud, or the Torah, or both?
"I am a teacher of Jewish studies...

...Traditional Judaism as a religion is based not only upon the Hebrew Bible but upon the Jewish rabbinic tradition, and the foundation of the Jewish rabbinic tradition is the Talmud - although actually there are two Talmuds (the Jerusalem and the Babylonian), and both are commentaries upon the Mishnah, a short legal work based upon the Bible that is the foundation of the Jewish tradition from a legal point of view. The Jerusalem Talmud is a product of the Yeshivot (study academies) in the land of Israel (from about 100 BCE to about 500-600 CE); and the Babylonian Talmud is a product of the Yeshivot in the land of Babylonia (also from about 100 BCE to about 500-600 CE). For a variety of reasons the Babylonian Talmud is the authoritative Talmud, and when the term Talmud is used without referring specifically to the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud is intended...

(now look at what he says next-)

...In the Talmudic and medieval periods there were Jewish sects outside of the Jewish rabbinic tradition - like the Sadducees in the Talmudic period and the Karaites in the medieval period. The terms Pharisees and Sadducees took on a negative connotation due to Christianity, but both the Pharisees and Sadducees were Jewish sects during the Talmudic period. The Sadducees were a priestly sect, and most of the ancient, hereditary priesthood in Judaism were Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the rabbinic tradition (the Oral Torah) and attempted to live as much as possible by what was written in the Bible (the Written Torah). The Sadducees disappeared with the destruction of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans - the Temple being the institutional center of the priestly cult. The Karaites were a medieval sect who like the ancient Sadducees rejected the rabbinic tradition (Oral Torah) and attempted to live as much as possible by what was written in the Bible. There were Karaite Jews in large numbers during the medieval period, but they too have largely disappeared. The Pharisees were a sect that was in the main led by scribes and teachers. The Pharisees did not feel bound by what is written in the Bible but by the Bible as understood according to the Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Talmudic rabbis were ideological descendants of the Pharisees. Thus, in traditional Judaism we as Jews live not by what is written in the Bible (the Written Torah) but by the Bible as interpreted and understood by the Jewish rabbinic tradition (the Oral Torah)..."
https://www.quora.com/Do-Jews-follow-the-Talmud-or-the-Torah-or-both


From: "Does the Talmud take precedence over the Torah?"

"The Talmud was written by men who made an effort to further explain what was found in the torah. It offers commentaries on biblical passages along with guidelines on how to live your life. In it are things which are listed as acceptable and unacceptable, which using stronger language is viewed as legal or illegal according to Mosaic Law. It offers commentaries on Jewish ethics, laws, history and customs. It also offers opinions on what is known as Judaism's Oral Law. Laws that were in theory, passed down through the generations to also offer explanations and directions concerning the written Mosaic Law.

Whenever someone had a question about Mosaic Law, they would take the question to the rabbis in charge and the rabbis opinion (ruling) would become law. There are different opinions offered by different rabbis concerning the same topics, so the talmud contradicts itself in some areas. Not all opinions could possibly be followed and the talmudic writings have been codified giving what is accepted by those who follow the talmud a legal guideline to work from.

Where did the authority come from to give these Rabbis the authorization to make rulings and writings that would be different from God's own words? The answer is, they gave it to themselves..."
https://jewishroots.net/library/anti_missionary_objections/does_the_talmud_take_precedence.html

All of which is unLawful and strictly forbidden according to the Torah:

Deuteronomy
4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
http://jahtruth.net/rabbis

 

[Annonymous_Damsel]

Ugh yes, I've heard it all on 702! And that other guy in Nigeria, TB Joshua. In the end they will all have their day in front of God!

Dude!!They will have their day.They have a very special place in hell reserved for them.Its sickening what they are actually doing.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Do Jews follow the Talmud, or the Torah, or both?
"I am a teacher of Jewish studies...

...Traditional Judaism as a religion is based not only upon the Hebrew Bible but upon the Jewish rabbinic tradition, and the foundation of the Jewish rabbinic tradition is the Talmud - although actually there are two Talmuds (the Jerusalem and the Babylonian), and both are commentaries upon the Mishnah, a short legal work based upon the Bible that is the foundation of the Jewish tradition from a legal point of view. The Jerusalem Talmud is a product of the Yeshivot (study academies) in the land of Israel (from about 100 BCE to about 500-600 CE); and the Babylonian Talmud is a product of the Yeshivot in the land of Babylonia (also from about 100 BCE to about 500-600 CE). For a variety of reasons the Babylonian Talmud is the authoritative Talmud, and when the term Talmud is used without referring specifically to the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud is intended...

(now look at what he says next-)

...In the Talmudic and medieval periods there were Jewish sects outside of the Jewish rabbinic tradition - like the Sadducees in the Talmudic period and the Karaites in the medieval period. The terms Pharisees and Sadducees took on a negative connotation due to Christianity, but both the Pharisees and Sadducees were Jewish sects during the Talmudic period. The Sadducees were a priestly sect, and most of the ancient, hereditary priesthood in Judaism were Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the rabbinic tradition (the Oral Torah) and attempted to live as much as possible by what was written in the Bible (the Written Torah). The Sadducees disappeared with the destruction of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans - the Temple being the institutional center of the priestly cult. The Karaites were a medieval sect who like the ancient Sadducees rejected the rabbinic tradition (Oral Torah) and attempted to live as much as possible by what was written in the Bible. There were Karaite Jews in large numbers during the medieval period, but they too have largely disappeared. The Pharisees were a sect that was in the main led by scribes and teachers. The Pharisees did not feel bound by what is written in the Bible but by the Bible as understood according to the Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Talmudic rabbis were ideological descendants of the Pharisees. Thus, in traditional Judaism we as Jews live not by what is written in the Bible (the Written Torah) but by the Bible as interpreted and understood by the Jewish rabbinic tradition (the Oral Torah)..."
https://www.quora.com/Do-Jews-follow-the-Talmud-or-the-Torah-or-both


From: "Does the Talmud take precedence over the Torah?"

"The Talmud was written by men who made an effort to further explain what was found in the torah. It offers commentaries on biblical passages along with guidelines on how to live your life. In it are things which are listed as acceptable and unacceptable, which using stronger language is viewed as legal or illegal according to Mosaic Law. It offers commentaries on Jewish ethics, laws, history and customs. It also offers opinions on what is known as Judaism's Oral Law. Laws that were in theory, passed down through the generations to also offer explanations and directions concerning the written Mosaic Law.

Whenever someone had a question about Mosaic Law, they would take the question to the rabbis in charge and the rabbis opinion (ruling) would become law. There are different opinions offered by different rabbis concerning the same topics, so the talmud contradicts itself in some areas. Not all opinions could possibly be followed and the talmudic writings have been codified giving what is accepted by those who follow the talmud a legal guideline to work from.

Where did the authority come from to give these Rabbis the authorization to make rulings and writings that would be different from God's own words? The answer is, they gave it to themselves..."
https://jewishroots.net/library/anti_missionary_objections/does_the_talmud_take_precedence.html

All of which is unLawful and strictly forbidden according to the Torah:

Deuteronomy
4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
http://jahtruth.net/rabbis

Supplementary Hypothesis

The supplementary hypothesis denies the existence of an extensive Elohist (E) source, one of the four independent sources described in the documentary hypothesis. Instead, it describes the Yahwist as having borrowed from an array of written and oral traditions, combining them into the J source. It proposes that because J is compiled from many earlier traditions and stories, documentarians mistook the compilation as having multiple authors: the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E). Instead, the supplementary hypothesis proposes that what documentarians considered J and E are in fact a single source (some use J, some use JE), likely written in the 6th century BCE.

 

[bible_student]

Supplementary Hypothesis

The supplementary hypothesis denies the existence of an extensive Elohist (E) source, one of the four independent sources described in the documentary hypothesis. Instead, it describes the Yahwist as having borrowed from an array of written and oral traditions, combining them into the J source. It proposes that because J is compiled from many earlier traditions and stories, documentarians mistook the compilation as having multiple authors: the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E). Instead, the supplementary hypothesis proposes that what documentarians considered J and E are in fact a single source (some use J, some use JE), likely written in the 6th century BCE.

A hypothesis is not proof of anything. This is the work of people who don't want to believe it and so they are seeking to formulate hypothesis that would be in support of them not wanting to believe. As for me, I believe the Bible, not their hypothesis.

 

[Artful Revealer]

We could do this forever. You have no proof whatsoever about your claim, that the oral tradition hasn't polluted scripture or that parts of scripture were in fact oral tradition. It'd be more interesting trying to rebut the arguments.