... between the Talmud and the Epistles? I find that many Christians, most in fact, are quite sure that the Talmud is not the Word of G-d. They have usually never read it, have absolutely no famliarity with its teachings, or even its format (as shown by the fact that they think Jews DO consider it the Word of G-d).. They MAY be familiar with one or two of the most controversial teachings, or maybe not.. But they are usually quite convinced that it is all unbiblical, perhaps even antibiblical, and aside from the Hebrew Roots movement, nobody even gives it a second thought, as if there were something worth reading therein. To a point I agree with the prevalent wisdom. The Talmud is NOT the Word of G-d. It is a commentary, a discussion in fact.. One could call it a FEW commentaries in one book. And there are plenty of good solid biblical teachings in it. There are also what I consider wholly unbiblical teachings, as well. The underlying question here is, Who is authorized to speak for G-d? I'm not simply talking about a calling to preach, we're ALL supposed to speak the Word of G-d.. as already written. I'm asking, Who may speak and have their words considered to be the revealed and inerrant Word of the Living G-d? In my opnion, aside from the prophets, Messiah alone can do this. But this leaves both the Talmud and the Epistles out. I find them to be similar in a few aspects. The Epistles, like the Talmud, is commentary on the Word of G-d. Timothy, James, and Paul were not prophets. I have looked in vain to find an objective basis on which to say that their words are or are not the Word of G-d. It seems the only basis there is is the decision of other Christian, yet human and flawed men, at the Council of Nicea. I think in the absence of evidence, we must assume that a thing is NOT the Word of G-d, rather than risk corrupting the true Word. Thoughts?