Explain yourself here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
When the Romans sieged Jerusalem in 70 AD, it meant the destruction of the Temple as the center of Jewish life and worship. That meant the end of the Sadducees who were dependent on the Temple. The Pharisees, however, preached a popular message of Jewish religion, that involved attending the synagogue, and a life of devotion to God. As such Judaism could survive the destruction of the Temple, because of the Pharisees. The Judaism of the Pharisees became Rabbinic Judaism, same religion. It is this Judaism that had already received the "Oral Torah" and which in the 2nd and 3rd centuries wrote it down as the Mishna, along with the rabbinic commentary, this becoming the Talmud.
Pharisaism is the Judaism we are all familiar with today, more-or-less.
It is also the Judaism Jesus most closely is identified with.
Theologically, Jesus was a Pharisee. He taught from the Prophets and Writings, His teachings were often rooted in rabbinic themes and language--the use of hyperbole and parable as teaching devices. Jesus taught that there was a resurrection of the body, that there were angels/devils. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (something irrelevant for the Sadducees, as they didn't believe in that stuff). Etc.
Religiously, Jesus was a Pharisee. Now, Jesus' teachings were more than just Pharisaism, and was often far more radical than anything the Pharisees were saying, and He had charged rhetoric toward religious hypocrites--those who He felt put on the show of religion without being inwardly religious, "White-washed tombs".
And due to this, the Christian movement from the earliest, has more in common with Pharaism than any other form of Judaism, and this is bolstered by the fact that St. Paul, the most prolific Christian writer of the 1st century, was himself a Pharisee, which he explicitly admits. At one point in the Acts he is arrested, and he mentions that he is in trouble for teaching the resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees believed and the Sadducees didn't, which then erupts into a heated dispute between both sides.
"
Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, no angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all." - Acts 23:6-8
This results in the Pharisees seeking to release Paul as innocent, and presumably the Sadducees becoming quite upset at the thought, and Paul's life is in danger over the disruption this causes.
-CryptoLutheran