Very true. But the text seems to lay things at the feet of the Pharisees. If you want to say that the Jewish leaders of the time were Saduccees (which is accurate as it relates to the composition of the sanhedrin at the time) then that would be fine and would resolve one prolematic element.
So you just pick whichever of them represents your current beliefs.
That's what the author wrote. Whether that's a record of what anyone actually said is highly doubtful because
That' true of all ancient literature.
it flies in the face of established Jewish law.
What was the established penalty for sabbath violation at the time of Jesus? Without that information you can't argue anything "flies in the face of established Jewish law". I saw that it was death in Numbers 15, and we know that was established because we have the dead sea scrolls which predate Jesus.
My current understanding of Jewish law relies on exactly what they believed then.
They believed that Jesus should face the death penalty, we have physical evidence for this claim.
That's how Judaism works. Our codes of law aren't new and our practice isn't some interpretation, but an application of known law. Trying to reduce it by calling it an opinion is simply wrong.
May I see evidence of what constituted the oral law as understood by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus?
and Numbers 15.
Actually it does. Deut 12:21 references laws taught which are not recorded in the written text.
Are you referring to commands about animal slaughter? the command about draining blood
is stated in Leviticus.
we have the talmud which is a written down version of the oral law. The talmud records conversations and legal positions which occurred before Jesus was born.
The oldest fragment of the Talmud seems to date from about 700 years ago, that's 1300 years after Jesus, moreover there are different talmuds as you well know.
I'm not sure where you get this from, nor do I know how you mean "penned."
Written down, the first Mishnah was written down about 200AD, before that time we have no idea what comprised the "oral law".
Unlike copies of writing that can be (and have proven to be with the NT as a fine example) faithfully propagated over long spans of time, there is no assurance for a remembered body of knowledge.
If human memory alone is sufficient for faithful propagation then you'd have no need of a Torah would you?
No he's not. He's putting his opinion regarding Jewish law above the official position.
If Jesus was who he claimed to be then, the his position was the official position.
He cites the talmud in a number of places and actually says to follow pharisaic teaching which would include the oral law.
The talmud didn't exist at the time of Jesus, it is the written oral law and it was never written down until centuries later. What actually took place is he made statements that we happen to now find written down in the talmud all these years later, not that he "cited the talmud".
The question isn't whether there is a death penalty for breaking the sabbath but if the process and application of the law as expected by Jewish writing would have called forth a death penalty based on what the gospels record.
Are you arguing that it is impossible for the Pharisees to have been corrupt? I don't think that line of argument will carry much weight, so if that's axiomatic for your we might as well stop oir discssuion here.
that's not actually allowed.
People do it, I expressed no view on whether it is "allowed" or not only that it goes on, some Jews do do it.
You are, again, taking a complicated idea within Jewish law and over simplifying it. In that world of oversimplification, you are drawing conclusions. But the premises are more complex.
I stated a fact, some Jews do do this, that's not an over simplification.
Because the judicial process would have required 2 interrogated witnesses, a formal
warning, a repeated offense, and more witnesses.
Why would you expect normal conduct in a highly abnormal situation? These people had never seen anything like Jesus, healing people, raising the dead, turning water into wine etc. Their over arching concern was for their own safety, fearing that the growing infleunce Jesus was having on people could lead to their derstruction under Roman rule.
Jesus was very clear about what people were doing wrong -- he felt that the pharisees taught the correct way to be but were not practicing what they preached.
Very good,so why your refusal to accept that they might not have executed their own laws faithfully? if they did indeed fail to practice what they preached then they were imperfect and so your expectation that they pursue a trial in perfect accordance with "the law" undermines your entire argument.
So if you want to say that the pharisees' behavior was problematic, that's great. But that doesn't change Jewish law.
But it does indicate that these men
didn't neccesarily adhere to laws, because they didn't practice what they preached.
bag. You don’t empty it enough; that’s probably why you’re constantly wet with that horrific odor. Bathe more then 
once every two weeks
Such a filthy mouth you have. I have been giving you encouragement and trying to help you but all you do is mean mouth in the most disgusting manner possible. Typical really. You transvestites have such a foul tendency. I’ve read that it has to do with your own self disgust. It’s like you hate yourself but rather than doing something nice you just slander others.
