are you sure that Jesus' response in Luke 20:35-38 is from the Pharisee's Oral Torah or indeed from any Oral Torah? -- I have not read any of that in the Talmud, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Paul points out that he WAS a Pharisee - not that he was still. It was a sect within 2nd temple Judaism -- and the Jesus-movement was another sect until at least 132 AD
"I would rather think that Jesus had his on interpretation of scripture" -- that is what Luke 20 seems to show, not the Pharisee's point of view
To the point The ORAL Torah was later codified and expounded upon in the Talmud. - this is not my claim, but is in the Talmud itself. Rabbinical Judaism or as we call it today, simply 'Judaism' holds to the Oral Torah that was separate from the written and allowed for how to interpret the Mosaic Laws.
note though that the Apostles and Jesus rejected the ORAL Torah - this was the extrapolation of the Mosaic laws and were what the Pharisees preached. - this yes, is a claim, not specifically my own, but not Rabbinical Judaic. This claim was held by Sadducees and by Jesus movement Jews and the Essenes. It is held today by Christians and by Samaritans
What is meant by oral tradition has not yet been fully defined here. I mean in the sense of pre-destruction of Jerusalem tradition, which was possibly (if not very likely) not the same after that destruction when the contention between Christians and Jews were at their greatest in history at that point. Many Jews in the diaspora were becoming Christians.
Regarding that, there was clearly a belief in oral tradition in the resurrection of the dead. This is clear from the question in (Matt 22:23-32) It is in this sense Jesus speaks on behalf of those who believe in a teaching about the resurrection. He demonstrates even that a different reading of the Torah (Which was notably astonishing to the crowds and to the Sadducees. (v33-34)
Heretofore the contention about the resurrection the Sadducees had was over the fact that it was only from sources after the Torah. Which is sensible, since the primary backing to the power of the priestly and ruling class was very grounded in the Torah.
Paul points out that he WAS a Pharisee - not that he was still. It was a sect within 2nd temple Judaism -- and the Jesus-movement was another sect until at least 132 AD
He also mentions his background among the Pharisees when it gained him allies amidst his final days in Jerusalem before being imprisoned to be eventually sent to Rome. (Acts 23:6-11) I agree that Christianity was not we'll distinguished apart from the Jewish religion at the time. Most Christians came from Jewish backgrounds as converts believing Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, thus the distinction would have been very cloudy indeed.
To the point The ORAL Torah was later codified and expounded upon in the Talmud. - this is not my claim, but is in the Talmud itself. Rabbinical Judaism or as we call it today, simply 'Judaism' holds to the Oral Torah that was separate from the written and allowed for how to interpret the Mosaic Laws.
And would be greatly affected by the rebellions against Romans by the Jewish people, the ongoing conversions of Jews to Christianity and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. The entire Jewish world was utterly ruined at the time the Talmud was written, it was terrible.
note though that the Apostles and Jesus rejected the ORAL Torah - this was the extrapolation of the Mosaic laws and were what the Pharisees preached. - this yes, is a claim, not specifically my own, but not Rabbinical Judaic. This claim was held by Sadducees and by Jesus movement Jews and the Essenes. It is held today by Christians and by Samaritans
The Sadducees clearly did not believe in the Resurrection of the dead. I'm attempting to understand where the opposition to this claim comes from except out of a rejection of oral tradition which most scholars believe to be the reason.