Thank you for supplying a new source! It still follows the same erratic misquotation methods as others but it's helpful to see them all. I'm adding details to the Talmud Quotes page.

"About the Christians":

1. Probably means Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 425:5, which says: "In the case of a Jewish heretic, which is someone who worships idols or sins in spite- ... and those who deny the Torah or Jewish prophecy, there is a mitzvah to remove them." There is no "Cohen Law" text but it's one of the funniest misnames! "Idols" is literally Akum, meaning "star and constellation worshipper". There is no ruling that Christians are Akum, but there are rulings that they are a special case.

2. Zohar, Vayetzei 27 (at 280, also called Zohar 1:160a) does not say "The Jews must always try to deceive the Christians." Google translates it as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." Zohar is a medieval source, again it is limited to use in wartime.

3. Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b comes close to saying "Even the best of the goyim should all be killed." The medieval Hebrew text quotes Tractate Soferim 15 by name, where the actual text is discussed, without significant elaboration here: במסכת סופרים [פט"ו] כשר שבכנענים הרוג ... דהיינו בשעת מלחמה or "In Tractate Soferim [15], the best of the Canaanites are to be killed ..., that is, in time of war." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, nor from the main Talmud (not found in Avodah Zarah 26b).

4. Bava Kamma 113a does not say "It is allowed to deceive the Christians." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice.

5. Part of this same quote comes from Rockwell's White Power attributed to Baba Kamma 113b, which accurately says, "Permitted his lost item, as Rav Hama bar Gurya says Rav says: From where permitted the lost item of a Gentile? As it is stated, With every lost thing of your brother's, to your brother you return, but you do not return to a Gentile. But say this applies where has not yet come into hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it. But where the item had come into his hand, say return it. Ravina said: 'And you have found' indicates that come into one's hand. Is taught Rabbi Pinehas ben Ya'ir says: In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." Thus the minority opinion is stated in order to be rejected. The lost item of a Gentile that is picked up must be returned if possible, and even if not picked up it should be returned for sanctification of the Name.

6. Bamidbar Rabbah 21 [not Talmud] does not say "A Jew who kills a Christian does not commit sin, but rather offers a sacrifice acceptable to God." It actually says, with reference to the death of Zimri (Israelite) and Cozbi (Midianite), Num. 25:13: "When anyone sheds the blood of the wicked, it is as if he had offered a sacrifice." So "wicked" is not a code for a Gentile, and Numbers itself compares such a death to an atonement.

7. Sanhedrin 106a accurately says, "Rav Pappa says this that people say: Was from princes and rulers, was licentious with carpenters." This is merely a proverb, applied to Balaam, which may also indicate contemporary mood about Jesus (already known from the Gospels), and is not directly about Mary or Jesus, nor an actual ruling.

8. Zohar, Bo 16 does not say "Christian extinction is a necessary sacrifice." This is attributed to the entire book "Zohar, Shemot" without paragraph citation, but this is the closest match in hand (aka Zohar 2:230 or 2:43a or 11:43a), given by Pranaitis in exaggerated form. The text (ויקרא כ' ע"א) (שמות י״ג:י״ג) וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְגוֹ' .... וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ .... לְאִתְמָחֲאָה מִן סֵפֶר חַיִּים, דְּעָלַיְיהוּ אִתְּמַר, (שמות ל״ב:ל״ג) מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי can be translated: "[Lev. 20:1, Ex. 13:13] And every donkey's firstborn shall be redeemed with a lamb, etc. .... And if it is not redeemed, you shall kill it .... To be blotted out of the book of life, so he said of them [Ex. 32:33], he who has sinned against me will be removed from my account." However, this is very basic Scriptural exegesis. If this were to be applied to a Gentile as Pranaitis hints, Torah context would be that the human must be redeemed with a lamb and could not be killed. This is not Talmud or command or halakhah; by the time the Zohar surfaced, disdain for Christianity was already present, but there is no genocidal text.

9. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1 (rulings of worshippers of stars and constellations), does not say "Do not save goyim in danger of death .... Show no mercy to the goyim." It says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." This is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.

10. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10 is also adventurously called the otherwise inscrutable "Torah c. 10". The standard text correctly reads "To whom do the above apply? To Gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minim, and Epicureans, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God." (Not "minimize".) This is the actual view of Maimonides, and refers to diverters, sectarians, and Epicureans, but only from the Jews, as Gentiles were outside this jurisdiction. Now, a variant censored reading exists, but it cannot be held to be the considered opinion of Maimonides or the conclusion of Judaism (as defined by the standard text): "As Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Zadok, Boethus, and their students". Since it's Jews only, this doesn't refer to Christians at large but to marranos, whom other Jews treated singularly. The actual relationship between the unit "Jesus and students" and minim is not stated, but it's clear that whoever wrote it considered marranos at large to include some who diverted Israel. But the formal opinion of Maimonides is that the definition of "min" applied to separation from the community and commands (which marranos did but many Messianics today do not), and that the mitzvah involved is only about self-defense. Specifically, one is not to pity an attacker (Deut. 25:12) or stand idle (Lev. 19:16), but warns the attacker and prevents an attack on another's life, preferably nonlethally. So it's not about killing other than in an immediate attack, and cannot apply to sect without a judgment that the sect strikes at the heart of Jewish community, and even then only applies to eradicating the perceived threat of blood (which in this case should always be doable nonlethally as Deut. 25:12 hints). The part about the pit is not a mitzvah but an inference from Ps. 55:23, assuming the attacker is in fact wicked. All this comes from Maimonides, the book of mitzvoth, explaining the exact mitzvah, so in the quote he is simply drawing an application to marranos as to removing any life threat they pose. Since his views often moderated at different times, he must be taken as a whole, but it's granted that this passage found in nonstandard copies of his book does reflect his times and is challenging for modern Jews to deal with.

11. Zohar, Bereshit 20:228, found in Rohling 1883 (footnote 82) as "Sohar I. 25 b", does not say "Jene, welche sich bestreben, den Akum Gutes zu thun, ihre Seelen werden nicht auferstehen" (Google translate, "Those who strive to do good to the star and constellation worshipper, their souls will not rise"). It says "These were Uzza and Azael; from them the 'mixed multitude' derive their souls, and therefore they also are called nefilim, because they fall into fornication with fair women. For this, God casts them out from the future world, in which they have no portion, and gives them their reward in this world." This is about specific Nephilim, spirit beings, not about Jews. Rohling ignorantly interprets the Gen. 6 conversation of the sons of God and daughters of men as if it refers to any Jew doing any good to any Gentile, which is totally unrelated.

12. Makkot 7b:4 does not say "You will be innocent of murder if you attempt to kill a Christian" and isn't about Christians at all. It's an extended discussion on manslaughter (unintentional). 3-4 says, "The Sages taught: Unintentionally, exclude the intentionally .... Intentionally? Obvious, he is subject to death. Rather, Rava said: Say, exclude the says 'It is permitted'. Abaye said to, If says 'It is permitted', he a victim of circumstances beyond his control." This cites Num. 35:11, and the context that murder (intentional) is capital and manslaughter (unintentional) is to be exiled. The argument is that the word "unawares" in Numbers creates a third category, and this is then defined as the person who is too incompetent to be tried, who can't learn the obvious about the law because he justifies himself contrary to it. (While this category can be and has been abused, the fact that it should exist is not in question.)

13. Shabbat 116a does not say "Jews must destroy the books of the Christians." This is an extended hypothetical about what books are worth breaking Sabbath law for if they are on fire. The general rule is 115a: "All sacred writings, one may rescue them from the fire." Actual text: "The blank folios and the scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire .... And just as they are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from matter that destroys them." Though one rabbi recommends respect for the holy Name in heretical books, meaning saving the text is permitted, the clear majority ruling is that due to heresy God even lets his Name be effaced. Though there is animus against the New Testament, there is no active destruction in mind, merely rescue of heretical books from disaster by natural "matter".

14. Bava Batra 54b (Talmud 4:3:54b) accurately says: "Rav Yehuda says Shmuel says: Property of a Gentile, it is like a desert; anyone who takes possession of it acquired it. What is the reason? Gentile relinquishes from when money reaches his hand, Jew does not acquire until the deed reaches his hand." In immediate context, this is not referring to all property of Gentiles, but to that which is being sold to a Jew. The distinction is that between payment and any delay in the receipt of the deed, it is possible that another Jew might claim squatter or other rights, and that would need adjudication. This has nothing to do with the world being ownerless.

15. Gittin 56b-57a has been misquoted repeatedly and variously. Actual quote: "Onkelos ... went and raised Jesus [the Nazarene?] from the grave through necromancy .... Said to him: What is the punishment of that man? Said to him: with boiling excrement." It appears "Nazarene" has been added; "Yeshu" is apparently a conflation of Jesus, and the student of ben Perahya, and the son of Paphos ben Judah, and others. Other observations about the hesitant theology and the rashly joking context appear in a previous study. The nine interpretative cautions there apply throughout this list.

16. Rosh Hashanah 17a accurately says, "But the heretics; ... and the apostates; who denied the Torah; ... and separated from the ways of community ... descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations." This appeals to Is. 66:24 and makes it literally "for eons of eons." Heretics, minim, means separatists (e.g. tritheists, not specifically Christians); apostates means Epicureans (hedonists); next are deniers of Torah (not Talmud); then those without community (assembly). Other categories appear also. Flatly, Talmud contains no judgment that followers of Jesus as Messiah are minim, nor is this about rejection of Talmud.

Thank you for supplying a new source! It still follows the same erratic misquotation methods as others but it's helpful to see them all. I'm adding details to the Talmud Quotes page.

"About the Christians":

1. Probably means Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 425:5, which says: "In the case of a Jewish heretic, which is someone who worships idols or sins in spite- ... and those who deny the Torah or Jewish prophecy, there is a mitzvah to remove them." There is no "Cohen Law" text but it's one of the funniest misnames! "Idols" is literally Akum, meaning "star and constellation worshipper". There is no ruling that Christians are Akum, but there are rulings that they are a special case.

2. Zohar, Vayetzei 27 (at 280, also called Zohar 1:160a) does not say "The Jews must always try to deceive the Christians." Google translates it as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." Zohar is a medieval source, again it is limited to use in wartime.

3. Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b comes close to saying "Even the best of the goyim should all be killed." The medieval Hebrew text quotes Tractate Soferim 15 by name, where the actual text is discussed, without significant elaboration here: במסכת סופרים [פט"ו] כשר שבכנענים הרוג ... דהיינו בשעת מלחמה or "In Tractate Soferim [15], the best of the Canaanites are to be killed ..., that is, in time of war." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, nor from the main Talmud (not found in Avodah Zarah 26b).

4. Bava Kamma 113a does not say "It is allowed to deceive the Christians." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice.

5. Part of this same quote comes from Rockwell's White Power attributed to Baba Kamma 113b, which accurately says, "Permitted his lost item, as Rav Hama bar Gurya says Rav says: From where permitted the lost item of a Gentile? As it is stated, With every lost thing of your brother's, to your brother you return, but you do not return to a Gentile. But say this applies where has not yet come into hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it. But where the item had come into his hand, say return it. Ravina said: 'And you have found' indicates that come into one's hand. Is taught Rabbi Pinehas ben Ya'ir says: In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." Thus the minority opinion is stated in order to be rejected. The lost item of a Gentile that is picked up must be returned if possible, and even if not picked up it should be returned for sanctification of the Name.

6. Bamidbar Rabbah 21 [not Talmud] does not say "A Jew who kills a Christian does not commit sin, but rather offers a sacrifice acceptable to God." It actually says, with reference to the death of Zimri (Israelite) and Cozbi (Midianite), Num. 25:13: "When anyone sheds the blood of the wicked, it is as if he had offered a sacrifice." So "wicked" is not a code for a Gentile, and Numbers itself compares such a death to an atonement.

7. Sanhedrin 106a accurately says, "Rav Pappa says this that people say: Was from princes and rulers, was licentious with carpenters." This is merely a proverb, applied to Balaam, which may also indicate contemporary mood about Jesus (already known from the Gospels), and is not directly about Mary or Jesus, nor an actual ruling.

8. Zohar, Bo 16 does not say "Christian extinction is a necessary sacrifice." This is attributed to the entire book "Zohar, Shemot" without paragraph citation, but this is the closest match in hand (aka Zohar 2:230 or 2:43a or 11:43a), given by Pranaitis in exaggerated form. The text (ויקרא כ' ע"א) (שמות י״ג:י״ג) וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְגוֹ' .... וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ .... לְאִתְמָחֲאָה מִן סֵפֶר חַיִּים, דְּעָלַיְיהוּ אִתְּמַר, (שמות ל״ב:ל״ג) מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי can be translated: "[Lev. 20:1, Ex. 13:13] And every donkey's firstborn shall be redeemed with a lamb, etc. .... And if it is not redeemed, you shall kill it .... To be blotted out of the book of life, so he said of them [Ex. 32:33], he who has sinned against me will be removed from my account." However, this is very basic Scriptural exegesis. If this were to be applied to a Gentile as Pranaitis hints, Torah context would be that the human must be redeemed with a lamb and could not be killed. This is not Talmud or command or halakhah; by the time the Zohar surfaced, disdain for Christianity was already present, but there is no genocidal text.

9. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1 (rulings of worshippers of stars and constellations), does not say "Do not save goyim in danger of death .... Show no mercy to the goyim." It says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." This is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.

10. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10 is also adventurously called the otherwise inscrutable "Torah c. 10". The standard text correctly reads "To whom do the above apply? To Gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minim, and Epicureans, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God." (Not "minimize".) This is the actual view of Maimonides, and refers to diverters, sectarians, and Epicureans, but only from the Jews, as Gentiles were outside this jurisdiction. Now, a variant censored reading exists, but it cannot be held to be the considered opinion of Maimonides or the conclusion of Judaism (as defined by the standard text): "As Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Zadok, Boethus, and their students". Since it's Jews only, this doesn't refer to Christians at large but to marranos, whom other Jews treated singularly. The actual relationship between the unit "Jesus and students" and minim is not stated, but it's clear that whoever wrote it considered marranos at large to include some who diverted Israel. But the formal opinion of Maimonides is that the definition of "min" applied to separation from the community and commands (which marranos did but many Messianics today do not), and that the mitzvah involved is only about self-defense. Specifically, one is not to pity an attacker (Deut. 25:12) or stand idle (Lev. 19:16) but warns the attacker and prevent an attack on another's life, preferably nonlethally. So it's not about killing other than in an immediate attack, and cannot apply to sect without a judgment that the sect strikes at the heart of Jewish community, and even then only applies to eradicating the perceived threat of blood (which in this case should always be doable nonlethally as Deut. 25:12 hints). The part about the pit is not a mitzvah but an inference from Ps. 55:23, assuming the attacker is in fact wicked. All this comes from Maimonides, the book of mitzvoth, explaining the exact mitzvah, so in the quote he is simply drawing an application to marranos as to removing any life threat they pose. Since his views often moderated at different times, he must be taken as a whole, but it's granted that this passage found in nonstandard copies of his book does reflect his times and is challenging for modern Jews to deal with.

11. Zohar, Bereshit 20:228, found in Rohling 1883 (footnote 82) as "Sohar I. 25 b", does not say "Jene, welche sich bestreben, den Akum Gutes zu thun, ihre Seelen werden nicht auferstehen" (Google translate, "Those who strive to do good to the star and constellation worshipper, their souls will not rise"). It says "These were Uzza and Azael; from them the 'mixed multitude' derive their souls, and therefore they also are called nefilim, because they fall into fornication with fair women. For this, God casts them out from the future world, in which they have no portion, and gives them their reward in this world." This is about specific Nephilim, spirit beings, not about Jews. Rohling ignorantly interprets the Gen. 6 conversation of the sons of God and daughters of men as if it refers to any Jew doing any good to any Gentile, which is totally unrelated.

12. Makkot 7b:4 does not say "You will be innocent of murder if you attempt to kill a Christian" and isn't about Christians at all. It's an extended discussion on manslaughter (unintentional). 3-4 says, "The Sages taught: Unintentionally, exclude the intentionally .... Intentionally? Obvious, he is subject to death. Rather, Rava said: Say, exclude the says 'It is permitted'. Abaye said to, If says 'It is permitted', he a victim of circumstances beyond his control." This cites Num. 35:11, and the context that murder (intentional) is capital and manslaughter (unintentional) is to be exiled. The argument is that the word "unawares" in Numbers creates a third category, and this is then defined as the person who is too incompetent to be tried, who can't learn the obvious about the law because he justifies himself contrary to it. (While this category can be and has been abused, the fact that it should exist is not in question.)

13. Shabbat 116a does not say "Jews must destroy the books of the Christians." This is an extended hypothetical about what books are worth breaking Sabbath law for if they are on fire. The general rule is 115a: "All sacred writings, one may rescue them from the fire." Actual text: "The blank folios and the scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire .... And just as they are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from matter that destroys them." Though one rabbi recommends respect for the holy Name in heretical books, meaning saving the text is permitted, the clear majority ruling is that due to heresy God even lets his Name be effaced. Though there is animus against the New Testament, there is no active destruction in mind, merely rescue of heretical books from disaster by natural "matter".

14. Bava Batra 54b (Talmud 4:3:54b) accurately says: "Rav Yehuda says Shmuel says: Property of a Gentile, it is like a desert; anyone who takes possession of it acquired it. What is the reason? Gentile relinquishes from when money reaches his hand, Jew does not acquire until the deed reaches his hand." In immediate context, this is not referring to all property of Gentiles, but to that which is being sold to a Jew. The distinction is that between payment and any delay in the receipt of the deed, it is possible that another Jew might claim squatter or other rights, and that would need adjudication. This has nothing to do with the world being ownerless.

15. Gittin 56b-57a has been misquoted repeatedly and variously. Actual quote: "Onkelos ... went and raised Jesus [the Nazarene?] from the grave through necromancy .... Said to him: What is the punishment of that man? Said to him: with boiling excrement." It appears "Nazarene" has been added; "Yeshu" is apparently a conflation of Jesus, and the student of ben Perahya, and the son of Paphos ben Judah, and others. Other observations about the hesitant theology and the rashly joking context appear in a previous study. The nine interpretative cautions there apply throughout this list.

16. Rosh Hashanah 17a accurately says, "But the heretics; ... and the apostates; who denied the Torah; ... and separated from the ways of community ... descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations." This appeals to Is. 66:24 and makes it literally "for eons of eons." Heretics, minim, means separatists (e.g. tritheists, not specifically Christians); apostates means Epicureans (hedonists); next are deniers of Torah (not Talmud); then those without community (assembly). Other categories appear also. Flatly, Talmud contains no judgment that followers of Jesus as Messiah are minim, nor is this about rejection of Talmud.