Sanhedrin 37a indeed states: "Therefore, Adam was created alone, to teach you that anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he destroyed an entire world. And anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he sustained an entire world." So it's true that Bennett's summary is misleading, but it's also true that the context compares the soul to Adam, who is not from the Jewish people, so the text also implies Bennett's conclusion without stating it directly.

The idea that non-Jews are not human is no more to count as a Talmudic opinion than it is to count as a Biblical opinion given the Old and New Testaments' very many allusions to people as animals ("lost sheep of Israel", e.g.).

The idea that non-Jews are literally animals shaped as humans is a kabbalistic notion of an arcane branch of Zohar study that is not mainstream at all. Some examples of both ideas appear in my quotes page.

Daniel and Revelation appear to teach that there will not be one world leader until the end, and before then there must be a multiplicity (ten) of powerful princes until they all agree to hand power to the one en masse. You get better info on the cabal from Daniel and Revelation than you do from the Talmud.

The "nascent Sanhedrin" that was active in 2004-2006 is mostly literally dead and retired. Nobody is using it anymore, although there may exist officials empowered to reconstitute it without a service break. It's my suspicion that the actual intent would be to reconstitute it fully newly using the same smichah methods as last time; otherwise there is no meeting body whatsoever of Sanhedrin nature.

As to the video in point 1, an interview with Yossi Gurvitz:

It's one writer trying to summarize, beginning with the "unchanged polity" view and continuing: "Now first of all, the problem with this version of history is that it is completely baseless. And second of all, that it has a few historical problems, and these historical problems continue to this day." The first argument, that the source of Judaism is Talmud rather than Torah, is accurate in the sense that Talmud as a claimed expansion of Torah is indeed the foundation for (orthodox) Judaism; but the fact that the Mishnaists decided the canon has nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity both being traced from hundreds of years of Jews who held the Torah as the first books of the Bible, and so it does not annul the foundationality of Torah to the Talmud. Second, the fact that there was a historical hiatus before Yavneh (Rabbinical) Judaism does not make the earlier historical testimony invalid as liberal critics believe; the identity of ethics in these two eras can thus be recognized.

The attempt to sweep away all this known history is then revealed to have the purpose of establishing a new thesis: "Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans." In this the Jewish speaker does agree with certain summary judgments about Talmud, but I do reserve the right to disagree with the sweeping generalization. First, the citation of Judaism regarding outsiders as "less than human" is honestly very similar to both Christianity and any other movement that considers outsiders not to have the full revelation of life: we count the "unsaved" who will never be "saved" as wicked and earning endless torment, and we implore those presently unsaved to turn from their wickedness, and in context this is what I see in the Talmud as well. Second, some distinctions raised, such as there being no rabbinical punishment for killing a non-Jew, are simple jurisdictional issues because the rabbis considered that Gentile courts would be responsible for punishing the killing of a non-Jew. (The aside "Orthodox Judaism has never abolished slavery" reveals that the writer considers himself some kind of greater Jew, even though human trafficking in our abolitionist era is worse than any slavery era.) The fact that the Shulchan Aruch, 16th century, then codifies certain permission for killing non-Jews and considering them idolators, does not have modern application but is an attempt to explain away past incidents by justifying them as posse-style capital punishment (i.e. Lynch law).

The statement that Maimonides "decrees that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a 3-year-old girl" again belies the facts shown in my quotes page. The original legislation came in an era when Rome was sexually abusing children of all ages, and Judaism was beginning to institute age-based protections; and the various passages on different aspects of these protections are often not read together to establish the whole picture. Sanhedrin 55b, for instance, describes execution for forbidden intercourse generally, building on Gen. 2 and Deut. 22; Yevamot 57b says that, in the case of the girl not over three, she is not rendered impure by the abuse, and this was intended to protect that child from disrepute later in life. Second, Maimonides allegedly "decrees that if a Jew rapes a three-year-old non-Jewish girl, then she must be executed"; actually, the writer means a girl over three. I suspect that the speaker is misquoting Maimonides, who did say that a girl over three is "fit" for intercourse, meaning that intercourse with her should be treated as full adult intercourse, not that it is permissible; and that this subjects her logically to the punishment of adult execution, unless the court shows mercy as it typically would in such a case. Maimonides also agrees with the generic ruling of executing the abuser as above, but if his or the Talmud's statements on allied concepts are taken out of context, a false argument from presumed silence is engendered.

The speaker then alludes to a Talmudic principle that peace permits the laws not to be applied to the full extent of their punishment. Well, duh. This appears throughout the Bible, as early as Judah learning to show mercy upon Tamar's capital crime (because it was his own as well). Nothing in the Talmud requires a capital punishment to be carried out to the end, and the Talmud praises a court for showing mercy consistently in capital matters. The mercy principle would only be objectionable if someone inferred that "real" Judaism wants merciless justice, but this inference cannot be taken from context and is only something templated upon the out-of-context passages, as mercy is praised in Torah and Talmud right alongside justice. Did the Hasmonean Jews genocide Hellenists and Edomites or force conversion, illustrating such mercilessness? I don't know! But even if wartime actions are questionable to people long after the fact, they do not indicate that the Talmud teaches mercilessness at all times "Israel is strong", as opposed to teaching in only in the time of just war. The speaker appears more concerned with Orthodox proclamation of Messiah signs, stating that Maimonides indicates Israeli independence is one such sign and implying the Orthodox ignore the rest; but the Orthodox know there are many hundreds of Messiah signs and they seek to bring them all about, which is an ordinary eschatology seen in other faiths too.

Returning to individual laws, he notes the Talmud encourages not contacting or eating with Gentiles in the race-based state: which is, of course, everything white nationalists want of racial purity too. The solution of all having their own state should be immediate. "Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew - except in order to 'keep the peace'." These are again out of context; the core law is that you cannot abase a Gentile, and the subtexts are that, e.g., it's not necessary to go out of your way to get involved in preventing abasement of a Gentile when it happens for some other reason, nor to go out of your way to find an unknown owner of a found item. The rash telephone-game restatement of these passages is responsible for their misunderstanding. He summarizes, "There are all kinds of prohibitions that are entirely psychotic, that are based on a religion of vengeance", but this undercuts the religion that he claims in some sense to be "reforming" and thus the whole foundation of the morality that he claims to be improving on, which is a facile and impotent methodology.

I did not know about a book "Torat Hamelekh". It was written in 2009 by rabbis and rejected by many others as untrue representation of halakhah. The fact that there is an extreme wing of Talmud interpreters not accepted by other Orthodox should not be taken as indications of what the Talmud teaches in context. More to the point is that some Orthodox seminarians are accused of hating Christians as automatic idolators and to urinate on churches; this is indeed a problem of a hardcore segment, but it is to be resolved by dialogue and defense. In short, the fact that a Jew is denouncing extremism in Judaism shows that the problem is not Judaism but extremism; the fact that a Jew (following the example of Nicholas Donin) forswears the Talmud and Orthodoxy doesn't mean that the religion is the problem. The problem, of course, is failure to agree on the nature of God and his rule of the world, which is to be resolved first through understanding dialogue (Rom. 11).

Your point 2 seems to be that the Talmud's having to account for early Christianity would make it opposed to Christianity. Oddly, when I investigated I found very little such opposition. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Talmud has one passage that definitely refers to Jesus, stating that he was hanged up during Passover by demand of the Sanhedrin, and that he had many disciples who went on to preach his message in his name. There are a few other passages about a generic "Yeshu", who is identified with three or more different people of different eras, and there are a couple that may refer to Yeshu's mother, but each of these has the ordinary disadvantages of being political caricature separable from history and of having no effect whatsoever on moral teaching. It can be understood that the Rabbinical Jews would have slight concern with a movement that came from Judaism that taught plurality in the deity and that focused on a two-phase Messianic strategy, since the remaining rabbis did not understand this, nor the destruction of their temple. But, even accounting for later censorship, the extent of this is extremely mild. Among two thousand, one rabbi, Ulla, clearly comes out against Jesus of Nazareth as an idolator. And among many Jewish commentators, there are a few, like Tovia Singer, who regard being anti-Jesus an essential of Judaism. However, the vast majority of Jews do not regard this as part of Judaism, and indeed they structure Jewish life as far as possible to permit avoidance of Christianity rather than opposition to it. (If we argued that many Jews find power and then make life harder for non-Jews, it would still appear that this is directed by most across the board rather than at Christians in particular, and that the minority truly opposed to Christianity cannot be taken as representative of "Jews" or "Judaism" at large.)

So I trust these haphazard conclusions are helpful to this thread. Knowing enough about the Talmud to criticize it accurately is indeed important. Recognizing that it has ordinary animus to outsiders, and comparing this with similar corpora and modern theories, is instructive. Reading the Talmud should not be done with bias on either side, either to think that the culture of hundreds of years (descended from the same covenant people Jesus grew up among) was automatically all evil, or to think that the same culture was automatically all good.