Semantics, I say. Jesus instituted Baptism and the Commemoration of the bread and wine, which I trust you are not denying?
You need to define "sacrament" and then defend that, much as one who attacks or defends "evolution" must define the term first.
I agree with your intention, but don't understand the point you are making. Jesus gave us a new command (John 13:34) to go with the new covenant (Matt 26:28)
1. What is a "sacrament" in your mind, the RC definition as posted in the Council of Trent?
2. How does that relate to "adding" to the Torah?
Well, yes I am denying... sort of. Neither could have been newly instituted without breaking Torah. Both, as practiced today, are pagan in origin - Less of a problem in the greater Protestant sphere, as both are (rightly) considered symbolic, but still, it is corrupting the images which were specified early on (Torah). For the Roman church, since they retain so much magick juju around their sacraments, it is far worse.
Jesus gave us a new command (John 13:34) to go with the new covenant (Matt 26:28)
... and as with every covenant, Moses was ratified into the 'new' covenant (Matt 5:17-20), and since every covenant is included in Moses (likewise ratified)...
1. What is a "sacrament" in your mind, the RC definition as posted in the Council of Trent?
Incidental to the argument, but any good dictionary will suffice.
2. How does that relate to "adding" to the Torah?
EVEN IF one were to suggest that things changed at the cross, these 'instituted things' were instituted prior to the cross, wherein Yeshua's function was as the sinless lamb, and as the Great Prophet who must be listened to... For him to be sinless, he cannot add a single thing to Torah, and for him to be listened to, he cannot have spoken anything against Torah. Period. To admit otherwise is to make him false. Since Torah cannot be added to or taken from, he cannot have 'instituted' anything.
And btw, John the Baptist was 'baptizing' before Yeshua, so it cannot have been instituted by Him.