How to Dismantle a Propaganda Bomb

This article is a polemic from the Sadducean perspective.  Of course the Pharisee oppinents may must counter-arguments (and they did) against the Sadducees.  It is not an attack on Orthodox rabbis, but  a defence against the Pharisees of 2200 years ago who oppsoed the Kohanim.

A series of claims are made by the Pharisees to justify their authority, and their power to add new laws to the Torah.  To the untutored, it is sometimes difficult to effectively counter these arguments.  So here is a guide to dismantle the bomb.

1) The first claim that they make is that the Torah tells us to follow the Pharisees,  or Sanhedrin.  This is based on their false reading of verses in Deut 17.   see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/that-which-they-shall-tell-you-claim.html

The Torah actually says that in case of a legal dispute, to “come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days” (Deut 17:9)

However, historical sources, including the rabbinical Talmud clearly state that the Priesthood were opponents to rabbinic laws.  Thus fulfillment of Deut 17 requires us to reject rabbinic law, the Talmud etc.  Furthermore, the founding fathers of Perushim were not Jews, but in fact descendants of Sennacherib. It was Shemaya and Avtalyon who opposed the Kohanim, and created a culture of rebellion against the Torah and elimination of the priesthood. The rabbis claim that they were converts to Judaism, but our claim is that they converted Judaism to something  which violates the Torah. See http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

2) The next claim that is  made is that they are in fact not violating the Torah’s injunction (Deut 4, and 13) to not add to the Torah.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/im-sorry-but-its-called-adding.html

They try to argue their way out of this, with sophistry, eg that adding is not adding if you call it something else; or adding is only prohibited when it applies to the details of specific mitzvah,  but not when creating an entirely new one.  This is so irrational, that it  only further disproves rabbanism.

3) Another series of arguments are that without the Oral Law, the Torah cannot be understood or practiced.  Much of this blog is dedicated to destroying those claims. But the general disproof to these arguments is that the Priesthood, ie the Sadducees, were able to practice the Written Torah without resort to an oral law, e.g. they were obviously able to sacrifice animals – and did not need a Talmud to tell them how to do so.

With these 3 general steps, and the many specific posts on this blog, the bomb of rabbinical warfare can be dismantled.