Hmm . . . good question. I guess we should also toss out the histories of Josephus, since he was one of those Christ-rejecting rabbis. And the annals of Tacitus, since he was a Christ-rejecting pagan. Whoops, there goes almost all of ancient history.
The Talmud is a collection of legal codes (the Mishneh) and debates among the rabbis (the Gemara). It preserves a lot of cultural context, Jewish idioms, and traditions which actually go back to the first century and can give new insight to the NT. When you read a work such as Alfred Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, where do you think he's getting his information from? The Talmud and other rabbinical sources. He's hardly the only Christian commentator to make careful use of rabbinic tradition either: I submit to you the commentaries of Keil & Delitzsch; Jonathan Lightfoot; Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown; David H. Stern and a host of others. I daresay that you'd be shocked at how many of your commentaries you'd have to throw out if you were truly zealous about rejecting all rabbinical material.
Obviously, the Talmud and other rabbinical sorces cannot be taken as sacred writ--but they do provide useful insight when studied carefully, especially the earlier traditions. The later traditions get pretty superstitious--but then, so do the medieval traditions of the Church, so we're certainly in no position to complain.
I use rabbinical tradition as a historical resource--and when studying God's Appointed Times, it's a vitally necessary resource, for the Church's only commentaries on the Feasts are either dependant on Jewish sources or do nothing more than come up with half-baked arguments not to observe them. If we paid no heed to rabbinic tradition, we would not know, for example, about the afikomen in the Passover dinner, one of the clearest symbols of the Messiah Yeshua to be found anywhere.
Moreover, I become particularly interested when the rabbis and the Apostles are in complete agreement on a matter. Why do you find it objectionable that I point out that the rabbis universally agree with Sha'ul that the Resurrection will occur at the sound of a shofar on the Feast of Trumpets?
Indeed, why do you find it objectionable to use Jewish resources to learn more about the culture, practices, and words of a Jewish Messiah?
No moral equivalency here.
It was not the expressed intention of Josephus to deny the reality of the coming of Israel's Christos in the person of Iesous of Nazareth.
The rabbis, in their Talmud and other writing, have done that very things. They have so perverted the word of God by masking the reality of Iesous as He is found there.
As Alfred Edersheim wrote, "He who has thirsted and quenched his thirst at the living fount of Christ's Teaching, can never again stoop to seek drink at the broken cisterns of Rabbinism." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah)
Do you used Josephus and Tacitus for historical background, or exegesis? I see the two as significantly different, if sometimes interrelated.
Indeed, why do you find it objectionable to use Jewish resources to learn more about the culture, practices, and words of a Jewish Messiah?
Perhaps an overreaction towards the speculations using Jewish culture, practices and words to eisegete readings into the text. There's probably a balance to be struck. I sure haven't found it yet.
Must you be so faithful in presenting the facts?
It's quite disturbing to those resistent to the truth!
You leave straw dogs, rabid dogs and lots of other nonsense no peace! Harumph!