It doesn't matter either way because the talmudic teachings has been the foundation that shaped jdaism for millennia.
You can quibble over which came first, the chicken or the egg or if jdaism's most respected religious scholars and their lives were fictional characters created by the pharisees, but it doesn't change anything meaningful: the talmud is still the talmud and jdaism is still jdaism.
If you can prove the rabbis scholars of the talmud are fictional characters created by the pharisees and those teachings are not based on teachings from early jdaism... then go ahead. I'll wait...
So, why is there never a mention of an oral law anywhere in the Bible? It's a kike myth, that's why. After the revolt of the false messiah Simon Bar Khoba was crushed by the Romans, the pharasee leadership fled to Babylon and invented a new religion. The talmud did not exist before 70 AD.
>So, why is there never a mention of an oral law anywhere in the Bible?
Rabbinical teachings are referenced in the Gospel, along with warnings about the jwish myths and commands of people who have turned away from truth (Titus 1:14).
It's ridiculous to pretend there was no jwish teachings about mosaic law until 70AD.
You can quibble over which came first, the chicken or the egg or if jdaism's most respected religious scholars and their lives were fictional characters created by the pharisees, but it doesn't change anything meaningful: the talmud is still the talmud and jdaism is still jdaism.
If you can prove the rabbis scholars of the talmud are fictional characters created by the pharisees and those teachings are not based on teachings from early jdaism... then go ahead. I'll wait...
Rabbinical teachings are referenced in the Gospel, along with warnings about the jwish myths and commands of people who have turned away from truth (Titus 1:14).
It's ridiculous to pretend there was no jwish teachings about mosaic law until 70AD.