You mean you really want to make the Oral Torah as defined by Jews, which is used to define such things as what constitutes keeping the Sabbath holy, of equal authority with Scripture? Where oh where do you see this?
According to Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat.[1]
The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, and the Gemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together are the Talmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in Jerusalem c. 300-350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Babylonia and published c. 450-500 CE (the Babylonian Talmud).
The fact is that the "Oral Law" contains things which the Lord reproved by Scripture, and also contains many examples of superstition and nonsense. And Rome has her counterpart, if not as extensive.
Also I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that Jesus instructed his disciples to write things down.
Other Caths have said the like, which is consistent with Scripture being at best a second-class authority in Catholicism (for as per Cath. teaching, it only has any authority as Rome defines and explains it) but the Lord did indeed instruct words of revelation to be written, to representative churches no less,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:11)
Moreover, since the Holy Spirit says what the Lord Jesus tells Him to say, then by Him the Lord told every single writer to pen His words, making Christ, whom Caths say never commanded anything to be written, the author of the entire NT!
Certainly Scripture does not contain all that can be know, nor has any church provided that, but what is written is set forth as the perpetual means by which souls may be saved and edified.
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)
Which wholly inspired word of God enables the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, and by which all Truth claims are tested. Nor can even the claimed "infallible" statements of Rome which purport to convey what oral tradition teaches claim to be wholly inspired of God, and thus they cannot be equal in authority.
In addition, nowhere is OT oral tradition appealed to as authoritative proof of the claims of Christ, which Scripture is as being the inspired word of God, and nowhere is any previous holy teaching of Scripture censored as not being of God, while what was considered to be part of OT tradition is reproved by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) which is what is invoked for support of NT oral preaching, showing its supremacy.
Certainly events, practices and teachings of oral teaching can be and were sanctioned, as can even sayings by pagans, and even typical Christian wedding ceremonies have much that was imported from foreign cultures, but all such are subject to examination of Scripture for conflict in order for them to be sanctioned.
A stong Oral Law together with the Written Law was the system of the Jewish people.
Under the magisterium, whereby they opposed Christ as breaking their tradition, as does Catholics against those who prove all things by Scripture as supreme.
Why would the early Jews who became the very first Christians suddenly change this concept to only written?
Because the concept of Oral Tradition being equal with Scripture according as the magisterium said so was contrary to Christ, and how the NT church began.
Note that oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, subject to testing by Scripture, is not the same as a magisterium assuming ensured veracity so that whatever they say Oral T consists of and means is infallible Truth. That novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is what RCs must establish as Scriptural and being essential for discernment of Truth, without appeal to Tradition as authoritative (which would be circular).
The Sermon on the Mount refers to Oral Tradition in the section on lust as well as prayer.
Actually, it refers to Scripture, which is the original source of any Talmudic wisdom that the Lord is seen expressing (or which happened to be similar to what the Lord said), which in turn Christ as the Word of God was the OT source of, under the Father.
Jesus had no problem using Oral Tradition as a source -
Actually he had no problem reproving Oral Tradition by Scripture (but never Scripture by Oral T), as well as affirming Scriptural Truths that some of Oral Tradition expressed (which SS preachers can also do), or which looked like He affirmed as it happened to conflate with Christ,
Which simply does not make Oral T equal with Scripture under an infallible magisterium, which effectively is the supreme authority for Rome, similar to cults such as the Mormons.
“..making Oral Torah equal...”
I did not make Oral Torah equal - my point was only that oral and written tradition was the norm. The idea of an oral tradition should be considered perfectly acceptable and not treated as an anomaly. Jesus used it (oral tradition - the bible refers to this -see Sermon on the Mount) to reprove and to preach so he picked and chose, but used it. That was my point.
I was simply showing that the Oral Tradition was VERY important to the nation of Israel until the generation of 70 A.D.. - as you say. That is a long time.
The jump in logic that I was making Jewish oral tradition equal to written was your conclusion but not my point.
Interestingly, Martin Luther translated his Wittenberg bible and excluded the so called apocrypha from his canon - which was compiled by the very Jewish magisterium that used the Oral Teachings that were discarded. You are having it both ways from the same (Jewish) magisterium.
Catholics use the older Alexandrian canon that Christ Himself used.
“wholly inspired word of God enables the preaching of Scriptural Proofs ...”
The reality is actually:
Scriptural proofs were enabled by the preaching of the wholly inspired word of God (by the Apostles orally THEN written down)
BECAUSE the oral preaching came first.
Show me exactly when and where (from history with an extant example) the first canon of the bible appeared without the deuterocanonical books and where such a bible lists its own canon. Remember that the Jamnian Council was compiled by the Jewish magisterium that you (correctly) ignore when they produced the mishnah. Show this outside of the canon compiled by the Catholic Councils which settled the Canon (a process) of Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Nicea II 797; Florence 1442; Trent 1546.
Also for a good faith discussion you could have skipped the “cult” and pagan and Mormon references because they are incorrect. Catholics are totally Christian and have the correct understanding and belief in the Trinity - in fact we were martyred and killed defending the Nicene Creed that first laid out the doctrine.