I then made a statement that The Oral Law comes from the Pharisees and from the 4th century BC." - to which you make a flippant, nonsensical statement Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the origins of Protestant sola scriptura! -- it does nothing of the sort. The concept of sola scriptura dates far later than the first centuries of Christianity (leave alone the foundations of Pharisee-ism circa 4th century BC
"preaching Judaism to the Protestants" - you are getting more and more incoherent - neither I, nor the article does anything of the sort
-------------
There is a difference between the Oral Law and the "doctrines of men" which the Pharisees had been creating. They are not the same thing. The Traditions of the Elders are man-made laws regarded by the scribes and Pharisees as having the same legal binding force as that of the Written and Oral Law.
This is not the case in Christianity. No one believes that (let's take Church Law for example) Church Law is on par with or equal to the initial deposit of faith, which is given to us through written medium (the Scripture) and oral and demonstration (the Apostolic Tradition).
This is not the case in Christianity. No one believes that (let's take Church Law for example) Church Law is on par with or equal to the initial deposit of faith, which is given to us through written medium (the Scripture) and oral and demonstration (the Apostolic Tradition).
Are you not aware that it is a Torah (Biblical) law to obey the Sages, and that the penalty for not doing so is death?
One of the big things is Judaism is whether a law is mid'Orayta' (from the Torah) or midRabbanan (from the Sages). This is a very important distinction and the Talmud is full of arguments as to whether certain laws are from the former or from the latter (such as whether the third paragraph of Shema` is the first or the second). That the Sages must be obeyed is certain, but it is important to make a distinction between the two, because to attribute a law of the Sages to the Torah itself is to "add to" the Torah. This is sort of like the arguments in chrstianity over whether certain teachings or practices are "apostolic" or "sub-apostolic."
For example, the holiday of Purim is in the Hebrew Bible but it is not from the Torah. It (like Chanukkah, which is mentioned in the "new testament") were established by the Sages and their observation enjoined by the Sages' Torah-based authority. Is this what you mean by "tradition" being elevated to the level of Torah? This is not so. All devout Jews know that these holidays are midRabbanan. Yet Jews regard them as mandatory commandments because of the Torah's command to obey the Sages.
It is precisely in confusing the two levels of authority that got Eve in trouble (though I don't know if you believe that ever really happened). G-d forbade eating from the tree and made it a capital offense. Adam added the commandment not to touch it. He was completely within his authority to do so, but he could not sanction his commandment with capital punishment. However, Eve told the Serpent that G-d had commanded them not to touch the tree, and that the penalty for doing so was death. She "added to the Torah," so the Serpent pushed her against the tree and said "See? You didn't die. So you won't die from eating from it."
The Sages are Judaism's (lehadil!) "church fathers." It is indeed hypocritical to attack Protestantism for rejecting sages while condemning Judaism for not rejecting sages.
All the attacks on the Sages I have read from Catholic sources sound exactly like Protestant attacks on Catholic tradition(s). This is why my personal opinion is that Protestantism was raised up by G-d as a punishment whose purpose was to use chrstianity's anti-Torah position against chrstianity itself. This is called middah keneged middah--measure for measure.