Yeah, my quotes make a little more sense in context, kinda like most quotes. I'm a sold-out servant of Jesus and this past month I finally decided to weed out the fake quotes from the almost-real ones. Here are accurate Sefaria-approved quotes for the ones I've researched, in one comment. AMA.

My page has most of the child abuse stuff.

cc: u/DZP1

Boilerplate:

Sanhedrin 59a does not say "Murdering goyim is like killing a wild animal .... To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly .... If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." This is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. In some versions of this meme, Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

Sanhedrin 58b comes close to saying "If a goy hits a Jew he must be killed." It says: "Rabbi Hanina says: A Gentile who struck a Jew is liable death, as it is stated, And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian." Since the context is Ex. 2:12, this refers to Moses's vengeance for the Egyptian "smiting" a Hebrew, meaning to injure willfully and often unto death. This reflects the capital punishment laws of Ex. 21:12 and applies to all, as the same Talmud passage says, "Rava says: Is there any for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a Gentile is deemed liable?" That is, all are alike.

That Dibre David link gives up to 6 candidates for the possible text, but they are probably all offline and untranslated. But one of them might have the long quote misattributed in the 19th century to "Libbre" David.

More than enough exposition. "Nazarene" is not in many texts and so there are several people this "Jesus" could be.

Boilerplates:

Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

Avodah Zarah 26a-b is close to saying "Heretics, traitors, and apostates are to be thrown into a well and not rescued." More fully: "Rabbi Abbahu taught before Rabbi Yohanan: Gentiles and shepherds of domesticated animals, one may not raise and one may not lower. But the heretics, and the informers, and the apostates are lowered but not raised." The general rule is that one may not make a Gentile's position better or worse; the specific rule does not apply to Gentiles but to known idolaters and criminals, with the principle being, not that one is actively cast into a well (as the examples demonstrate), but, first, a known idolater in straits is not rescued at the risk of one's own life. Second, as contextualized in "Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 158" (listed here separately), in Israel during temple times it is probable someone did once anecdotally make a situation worse for an idolater in straits, by using an excuse to remove a ladder; and this was regarded as acceptable because the idolater was supposed to be subject to death anyway and the person involved potentially and indirectly may have hastened the event (thus was regarded the same as taking the sword into his own hands to slay). Even though the victim had fallen into his own peril, this appears to be Talmud, but it's an individual judgment of Abbahu that is disputed by others with no majority view appearing, and it goes against the Torah principle that multiple witnesses must contribute to putting an idolater to death. If it had any application in context it would only refer to convicted heretics or criminals. So it's not about Gentiles at large (who are excepted), it's not about direct harm (examples given), and it's only for those who were convicted in court but who then fell into peril by God's hand.

Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388 does not say "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces .... If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth." The Hebrew text does not speak of goyim or earth. Rather, this is an abridged quote from I. B. Pranaitis, 1892, p. 77 in 1939 edition, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

Sanhedrin 59a does not say "Murdering goyim is like killing a wild animal .... To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly .... If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." This is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. In some versions of this meme, Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

(Note the specific words for Gentiles vary widely as to whether it means all humans, all non-Jews, or just idolaters, and so I'm not correcting those translations as I go.)

Funny bot quotes:

'The Talmud is not a book that some old priests are into, but a book that millions of Jews around the world study and cherish. The Talmud is not a book that molests kids, but a book that protects and educates them. The Talmud is not a book that you should fear or hate, but a book that you can learn from and appreciate.'

Waxing poetic (hate, appreciate)? No, there is not evidence that millions study and cherish it, 90% of Jews ignore it and 90% of the rest don't "study and cherish". Most people who celebrate Talmud get credit for reading the last page of it along with some designated person who read the whole thing. Yes, that's real. However, it's the most detailed book of regulation of child molestation in five thousand years.

'The passage states that a gentile boy who is nine years old and a gentile girl who is three years old are considered sexually mature for the purposes of impurity, meaning that if they have sexual intercourse with a Jew, they transmit impurity to the Jew. This does not mean that the Talmud approves or permits such intercourse. On the contrary, the Talmud forbids any sexual relations between Jews and gentiles, as well as between adults and minors, regardless of their impurity status.'

They only transmit impurity if they're impure, which they usually aren't because that means menstruating or having open sores. Understandable that the bot misses the fine points. Near as I can tell, the cutoff for minors is 12 for girls and 13 for boys (or 9 in a pinch), and that only works if you have such an upstanding community that the Virgin Mary can survive in it unmolested. In other words, the community has only once aspired to the kind of holiness that could hope to permit that dynamic.

'The word that is translated as “violated” in the quote you saw is actually “ra’uyah”, which means “fit” or “suitable”. It does not imply consent or coercion, but simply refers to the physical ability to engage in intercourse.'

Correct, except "violated" is an inference not a translation.

'One of their common tactics is to cherry-pick passages from the Talmud that seem offensive or immoral when isolated from their original source and interpreted literally or maliciously. They ignore the context, the commentary, and the tradition of interpretation that are essential for understanding the Talmud correctly.'

Fair enough as it goes. Many other passages have different problems than that.

'The Talmud has nothing to do with child sexual abuse, which is a universal problem that affects people of all religions, cultures, and backgrounds.'

The Talmud is constantly regulating child sexual abuse, meaning in a dozen places. My post is a start, I'll let readers pick and choose from there rather than overload the witness. Abuse was rampant in Rome and the Jews only reeled it in a little and then did nothing more for a millennium. Meanwhile, the Christians somehow survived 300 years of persecution without ever having to deal with child sexual abuse, except for being falsely accused of it and killed. (Were all the accusations false? I think so, but who can tell?) During this time, the accusations against the Jews were not so much about child abuse (that happened c. 1200), but were about refusing to bow to Caesar and committing murders and insurrections (70 and 135).

'allegations or cases of child sexual abuse within their communities. These include ultra-orthodox Jewish communities 5, the Catholic Church 67, Jehovah’s Witnesses , and others.'

Way to bias the cites, bot.

'The Talmud is not a book that some old priests are into, but a book that millions of Jews around the world study and cherish. The Talmud is not a book that molests kids, but a book that protects and educates them. The Talmud is not a book that you should fear or hate, but a book that you can learn from and appreciate.'

VERBATIM! It's gotta be quoting a human.

20

1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." 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, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.

3-5 See #1.

6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.

7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. 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." The 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 herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.

8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, 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." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, 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 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."

12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.

13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."

15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.

16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.

19 See #10.

20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.

Details

I like how the bot kept repeating itself! My notes:

1. "not an accurate representation": fail, it shoulda said not found at all, but it didn't know.

2. "discussing legal and ritual matters related to idol worship, not advocating for violence against Gentiles": fail, it really is one man advocating for violence against Gentiles who have declared war against you. That's the context, bot.

3. "not a call for harm": fail, yes it's a call for harm by one rabbi, but it was overruled is the important point.

4. "not a recognized text in mainstream Judaism, and this quote is not from the Talmud": correct.

5. same.

6. "taken out of context": fail, not really, it's a misquote rather than an out-of-context. The concept is there but it's not about being "permitted" but punished afterward.

7. "does not reflect mainstream Jewish ethics": fail, should just say stated source unavailable (per my links). I show the thought is close to Bava Kamma 113a and so it does reflect ethics about cases in which potentially deceptive circuitousness is permitted.

8. "not representative of Jewish teachings, which generally emphasize the value of all human life": fail, it's a valid quote, context being if it means your own life would be at risk and the endangered person were a known idolater.

9. "not a universal principle in Jewish teachings and should not be taken as such": mostly fail, yeah, it's universal because it's a quote of Deut. 7:2 (KJV): "nor shew mercy unto them." Only applies to Canaanites among the goyim though. In this case bot should learn the context (Deut. 7:1).

10. "seems to be taken from a source that is not widely recognized": fail, it's widely recognized (Choshen Mishpat) but obscured. But the quote isn't there, there is no paragraph 15 in chapter 388.

11. "not representative of the ethical teachings found in the Talmud and Jewish tradition": mostly correct, the concept is warped from the original.

12. "not consistent with principles of truthfulness": mostly fail, it seems to come from somewhere medieval with that thought, but there are three or more obscure responsa that this cite could refer to.

13. "not representative of mainstream Jewish teachings and values": pass this one, since the quote changes "are called" (deemed) to "are".

14. "not from the Talmud and should not be taken as an accurate representation of Jewish beliefs": utter fail. The Talmudic source is Shabbat 32b, which reads "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is reflective of Jewish beliefs (as well as triumphalist Christian beliefs taken from Zech. 8:23), but the words Jew and Gentile are not present, which is significant.

15. "reflects a distorted view that is not representative of Jewish thought": mostly fail, but it's not from the source quoted but from some unfindable haggah commenting upon it. Again, it's probably present in Judaism somewhere, but not binding at all.

16. "not representative of any mainstream Jewish teachings and is not an accurate portrayal of Jewish ethics": pass this one. Again, it's nonrepresentative only because it's misinterpreted as permission.

17. "not from the Talmud and is not consistent with Jewish teachings": pass for same reason as previous.

18. "not reflective of Jewish teachings and ethics, which generally hold all individuals accountable for their actions": fail, the quote does reflect the ethic that Jews (death by stoning) are not capitally responsible in the same way as Gentiles (death by the sword).

19. "from a legal code but should not be taken out of historical and legal context": hah! Well give it a pass here too. It can't say it's misrepresented, it can only say you have to read more of the unfindable source to understand it.

20. "not representative of Jewish ethical principles and is not universally accepted": mostly fail. The principle of "finders keepers" expressed by the Talmud includes the thought that the Jews are not responsible for tracking the ownership rights of Gentiles to the same degree as their own.

Bot scores 7 out of 20 correct judgments.

OP

1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." 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, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.

3-5 See #1.

6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.

7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. 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." The 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 herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.

8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, 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." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, 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 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."

12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.

13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."

15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.

16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.

19 See #10.

20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.

Details

TLDR: Only 6 of them claim to be from the Talmud itself, the rest are medieval nonbinding interpretations. Of those six, #1 and #2 do not appear in the sources quoted, #3 is one man's contravened minority opinion out of context rather than a binding ruling, and 6, #13, and #16 are maliciously misinterpreted with inaccurate quotes.

20

1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." 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, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.

3-5 See #1.

6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.

7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. 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." The 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 herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.

8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, 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." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, 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 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."

12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.

13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."

15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.

16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.

19 See #10.

20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.

Details

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.59a?lang=he

והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול התם בשבע מצות דידהו: ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי) ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה: לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו: כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.59a?lang=bi gets you the interlinear.

It does not say any of the following: "Murdering goyim is like killing a wild animal .... To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly .... If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." This is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews.

In some versions of this meme, Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name (only the bold online is original, the rest is commentary): "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view.

The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

TLDR: In the best scenario, the long quote is a 19th-century biased summary of a net-unavailable medieval source, and Jews have been trying to find the original since 1920 but haven't linked it up. The last link above gives six more leads 1723-1902 for the offensive quote if you can find the original Hebrew manuscripts anywhere. But all that's not Talmud itself. The main point is that in Talmud itself Rabbi Yohanan was contradicted by the majority, who ruled that Gentiles are allowed to study Torah to learn the laws of Noah. Talmud minority opinions are nothing more than opinions!

OP

1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." 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, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.

3-5 See #1.

6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.

7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. 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." The 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 herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.

8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, 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." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, 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 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."

12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.

13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."

15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.

16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.

19 See #10.

20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.

Details

These rocks all look quarried. Jesus is the rock not carved with human hands.

Human bloodshed leads to pollution. Examples, Ps. 108, Ezek. 16.

I don't have all the answers (though I know who does); just comparing notes.

Switch-up! Is the hexagram the Star of Remphan? I did independent study on this. Amos 5:26 mentions the "star of your god" Chiun, later identified as Remphan, when no polygrams of any kind were associated with Israel! Pentagrams and later hexagrams came in primarily through the Pythagoreans. So this star is shown by inspiration not to be the hexagram! (I concluded the star in question was the bronze idol Nehushtan or its symbol.) This anachronism doesn't prove "Jews serve satan"; we know everyone of any race who doesn't serve God as he has revealed himself, through his true Messiah Jesus, is in some way serving satan (no dualism, just that satan claims and benefits from all service not directed to God).

Can Jews be saved? Only by accepting God revealed. I say one can accept God rightly as revealed in Tanakh as long as one has not personally rejected Jesus as Messiah. Before Jesus came, those without revelation showed whether they accepted or rejected God's testimony through nature by their behavior and conscience, Rom. 2:14-15. After that, Jews ended up in the place of being without the revelation of the identity of Messiah, and they can still be judged by the rule of whether their actions show acceptance or rejection of God: like any other people-group partly reached with the truth. I have hope for all such races as the Bible teaches. Besides the nearly a million Messianics, it's still possible today for a Jew to come to know God without knowing the Messiah's name if he has not rejected that Messiah (and they have not rejected him corporately, though a few individuals have done so personally). And that truth applies the same to any other unreached tribe or community that believes a Creator exists but doesn't know enough specifics about him. The real problem is that Christians exempt the Jews from this rule of evangelism that applies to every other people!

Switch-up! Jews are connected to Masons? Jackie, maybe. The faulty arguments from symbolism are unpersuasive (straightedge, 90 degrees, is not equilateral, 60 degrees). Masonry is a syncretism mostly of Abrahamic faiths, well of course it sounds Jewish, it also sounds Christian! No proof the GAOTU is "Moloch", as if we've interviewed the idols; we should just stick to our basic knowledge that all the satanic idols are connected. Then:

Switch-up! Jesus cursed the Jews in John 8? Actually, only those among the leaders who had first believed in him and then disputed and insulted him repeatedly (see the whole course of the chapter), not anywhere near the whole race. Of course we know physical descendants of Abraham aren't always spiritual heirs of Abraham, but they are not excluded from returning! Even Abrami cites 8:44 and misquotes as "The Jews are the sons of the devil"! If a Jewish rabbi can misunderstand the NT about the Jews, it's likely we can misunderstand the Talmud about Jesus! Rather, Jesus spoke to "those Jews which believed on him" who didn't accept his charge "continue in my word", 8:31. The gospel was preached by and among Jews, and many tens of thousands of them believed (literal myriads, Acts 21:20), and these Jews obviously were spiritual children of Abraham; so there was no racial curse from Jesus's preaching. In Acts 3-4, many of the very mob that called for his death came to be saved.

Who is the synagogue of satan? First, Jesus said they're not Jews. If we said he means they're not real spiritual Jews, well, then he'd mean some Jews in Philadelphia/Smyrna, but of course not the Christians from among the Jews. Jesus the Jew said this to John the Jew, so it cannot mean the whole race; it means a network that had infected these two cities only. We don't get to extrapolate this as a racial slur.

Who are the antichrists? The clever idea of limiting this to people that believe a messiah exists doesn't work in the other definitional passages. 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7 say who won't confess "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" is an antichrist, so belief in "messiah" is no prerequisite to being antichrist, but rejection of the central message of Jesus.

Denying Jesus? Reuven Mann was willing to say, "If the claim is made that he's a Messiah, then he's a false Messiah." But note, the question is still out on whether he even claimed that, because the Messianic title in Judaism is so redefined onto the national deliverance aspect! So he carefully keeps himself off the hook of speaking directly against Jesus's title. But then Anderson goes to: "We know that that other messiah that's coming is the antichrist". Not quite that simple! Of course antichrist will deceive many Jews and many Gentiles, but there's no reason for many Jews and many Gentiles not to turn to Jesus at that hour too. They are not nationally pledged to either! Each individual will decide; the race has not decided. Rabbi Jeremy Gimpel's statement is similarly two-edged, and often heard: "We will all kneel before the king, do you know what I mean, whoever that is. So, your vision of that, you say it's the second coming." Literally, that means if it's Jesus, sobeit, we'll still only count it as his first coming as Messiah (a narrowing of definition shared by several in this video, but confusing to many Christians). Yet it can also permit a false messiah, and that is the range of openness that encourages our evangel.

So will all (the bulk of) Israel be saved? Anderson rightly points out the devil's antichrist strategy, but then misreads Rom. 11 as if it teaches the tautology that all the saved will be saved. No; he means "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [chosen] hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Physical Israel was split in two so the Gentiles could be brought in, and, once they are, Israel will receive its healing. Eschatologically, this happens a long time after sifting and testing by the initial deception of antichrist; but this complex plan to outwit the devil's scheme requires consulting many Scriptures so we often get only pieces of it.

Bless Israel? 2 John 1:9-11 cannot be taken as saying that to bless those without Christ is automatically to partake of their evil deeds, because Jesus says, "Bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). (Rather, John is not speaking of general blessing, but those among people who "come ... unto you" (1:10), in context who present themselves as having a message for the church.) Hagee mistakenly said, "Everyone else ... needs to believe in Jesus ... but not Jews". I don't know if Hagee has moved on from that, or if it's a semantic game, but of course that sentiment as ordinarily understood does not ultimately bless Israel; they have the same need as any other nation. Instead, they can (see above) only be saved and "brothers" if they accept God on his own terms and not reject the Messiah at the time in their lives he is pleased to reveal himself to them. We want Jews to have the truth, requiring sensitivity to their desire not to be evangelized and skillful presentation of truth that overcomes their fear: this is why a slogan of Jews for Jesus is to make the Messiahship of Jesus an "unavoidable issue" for Jews worldwide.

Politics? Not that interested; yes, the Jewish-Evangelical lobby is strong, but it only works if both sides recognize the truths I'm pointing out, so they don't fall prey to Anderson's criticisms. The idea that Jehoshaphat of Judah was not to support Israel when it was ungodly may be a valid principle, though a bit misleading in presentation; but Christians take both sides on this nonessential question.

Does Israel have narrow citizenship laws and tight antimissionary provisions? Absolutely! Which makes it just another of the creative-access countries so familiar to spreaders of the truth of Jesus. Gay Tel Aviv, same point.

Kabbalah? Yes, Hagee said Washington wanted the hexagram and Shekhinah to be on the dollar (Washington only spoke of the great seal and it was Roosevelt who put it on the dollar; so that's overreach). The glory of God is Biblical and must be understood as it is, and it is called "shakan". So Shekhinah is not wrong if used consistent with Biblical glory. The masculinity of Father, Son, and Spirit is emphatic, but the occasional Scriptures that speak of his feminine aspects, most notably as Wisdom in Prov. 8-9, must be understood as they are presented: not as some sexual duality but as an expression of God's total overarching character. (Anderson implies a dangerous idea, that only males are in the image of God; rather, first usage (Gen. 1:26) is, "Let us make man in our image ... and let them have dominion", and "man" is "them".)

Genealogy (which turns out to be the last point besides the gospel): Much time wasted. One good point, there's high likelihood that many or most people have at least one Jewish person somewhere earlier in the tree; but that doesn't define Jewishness, which is determined only by matrilineality or conversion. The Jewish populace still has self-definition rights to determine who is a member, just like any other race that doesn't want to be watered down.

Spiritual covenant aspects have always stayed with the covenant people even as those people became largely Gentile and called "Christians"; national covenant aspects have always, like any national covenant, related solely to the physical and been passed down to a people as self-defined. The divergence of these two covenants leads to much mystery, resolved as soon as it is seen.

Jews are not satanist by birth; rabbinical Jews are not necessarily satanist by religion any more than any non-Christian religion. But the vast body of Jewish thought keeping many of them from committing outright rejection of Jesus as Messiah is neglected. It is because they have been entrusted with all the Hebrew Scriptures that they have, in every generation, all the tools the disciples had to come to faith in Jesus. As a people they have been in a holding pattern ever since, constantly forced to face the same question of Jesus's identity over all generations, as so many other nations pass them by in becoming evangelized with the good news. They are still an unreached people, in some ways the last one! They resist evangelism more than the remotest tribe, and with more power. Even if someone were to tell me directly he was a son of satan, I would still hold out hope for him while he is alive. I can do no less with the people from whom my Bible and my Messiah came.

Many tropes, choppy themes. The gospel to all races Jew and Gentile could've unified. The video ends with the gospel, but I daresay that the producers would've complied with the standard that all the Jews interviewed would've insisted, that their appearances would be predicated on the implicit condition that they not be "evangelized". Instead, give the same gospel to both Jew and Gentile, to escape the charge of believing (like Hagee is charged with thinking) that Jews are unwinnable to the current gospel. The producers seem to state that no Jews were evangelized during the making of this film. Maybe they believe it fruitless, that the people are too far gone.

Their goal is to claim the true Zion and "replace" all Jewish promises. But failing to see spiritual vs. national promise, the land covenant remains invisible to the producers. Then these slightly-spun points get used as fodder for spin beyond recognition and really monstrous racism, which Anderson avoids showing. So were the positive features, the interactive dialogue, the vignettes about Jewish oddities, the genealogical argument, worth the imbalance and spin? It's hard to say the strengths overcame the weaknesses. The need for remediation is much clearer than the effectiveness of the whole presentation.

Footnote: The Church of England has "some correction" to "chosen" Jews: "God’s will is for all people to enter into the renewed covenant in Christ’s blood .... Jewish people therefore need to discover and respond to this divine gift as God’s irrevocably chosen people" (p. 30 ff.). Concerns of fundamentalist members are held as legitimate to present to Jews without fear of reprisal. That's how it's done. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis affirmed this, questioning only "targeting of Jews for conversion to Christianity." I answer, "Convert to God" (Ps. 51:13, shuv). Find God's new covenant in Messiah. They've never said it's impossible to return to unity or to continue dialogue.

How might dialogue with Jews proceed instead? In the Sanhedrin section of the Talmud, when all the rabbis are making puns about how the Messiah will be named after them, why doesn't Rabbi Yehoshua make a pun about his own name, but changes the subject instead? Is it for the same reason that Zechariah says that High Priest Yehoshua from his day would have a name connected with the Branch of God, the Messiah? Do the Jews still look for the prophet like unto Moshe, who appointed no successor other than General Yehoshua son of Nun? Why do the commentaries on the Talmud admit that there will be two Messiahs, not only the son of David who will reign, but also a "son of Joseph" (!) who will be humble? Why does the Talmud teach that there is a special Angel of the Lord who has the privilege to stand before the Lord as an equal, almost like the Son of Man in Daniel 7, even though it is taught that there is otherwise no such standing before the Lord? Why does Rabbi Simlai present arguments for the corporate unity of God when debating separatists who sound like early tritheists? Why did the rabbi in this video reiterate that the Shekhinah is One with God the Father and yet distinctions can be made between them, exactly as we speak of Spirit and Father? Why do rabbis act like they worship the Torah, especially in the annual festivals, not the synagogue scroll but the eternal Message of God it contains? Why does every Passover seder have exactly three matzah slices, where the second of three is broken in half, one half remaining with the others and the other half wrapped and hidden secretly, and then sought and found and brought out later as the last part of the meal, the "afikomen" (the one coming afterward), the last slice of unleavened bread presented with the last cups of wine, the same bread and wine that Jesus called his body and blood in that annual meal? Why do rabbis read Isaiah 52 and 54 in the prophetic cycle but not 53? Since the suffering servant of 53 is distinguished from sinful Israel and yet is also Israel, wouldn't that mean in fact that he represents the best of Israel, possibly the best one alone out of all Israel? How will Israel mourn for the one they have pierced as for a firstborn son, according to Zechariah? Can you see why I'm excited about the Jewish sources? Why does the Talmud say that everyone who approaches heaven will be asked by the Father, "Did you accept the salvation of my Messiah?"?

An old "liveblog" review of this video.

Do Jews think Talmud supersedes Torah? If so, it would be idolatrous. Orthodox Rabbi Reuven Mann says, "[Talmud] is inspired by God"; this is like saying the KJV is inspired by God, and usually not like saying the autographs of Scripture were inspired. Reform Rabbi Irwin Wiener says, "Everything that has anything to do with Scripture is regarded as Scripture by a large segment" (including the Talmud). Yet the Orthodox believe that the Reform's definition of Scripture as human creation is sectarian; so this gloss doesn't amount to supersession, and it's misleading to set the Reform claim up as if supportive of the Orthodox statement rather than contrary to it. Now, in Eruvin 21b, Rava says, "My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah", because Sages (literally scribes, office not texts) can invoke liability to death and Torah can't. This too is not widely taken as a claim of Jewish supersession. No primary body of Jews regards Talmud as overriding Torah on any point, though it's understandable many regard Talmud as relatively "superior" in many respects. Answer, no.

Does Talmud clearly denigrate Jesus by name? The one clear passage begins, "Yeshu was hanged" (Sanhedrin 43a). (Sefaria indicates belief that "the Nazarene" is inherent to the Yeshu specified.) There Ulla charges him as an "inciter" to idolatry, meaning that is his opinion but not taken as the judgment of Talmud. A legendary anecdote then says five of Yeshu's disciples were executed (not far from true if understood broadly), giving formulaic Tanakh puns to explain why each of their (common) names prophesies their execution. This passage is not directly objectionable. So, yeah, the Talmud teaches that Ulla later approved the death of Yeshu, probably Jesus, but it does not take an independent moral position on his death or his charges there. Answer, no.

Does Talmud contain indirect denigration applicable to Jesus? Most important here is the misleading presentation of quotes. Sanhedrin 106a says Rav Pappa cited the proverb "This woman was descended from princes and rulers, and was licentious with carpenters" comparing the woman to Balaam. Peter Schafer, "Jesus in the Talmud", believes it can apply indirectly to Jesus's family, which is a valid position within Judaism; he reviews encyclopedically all reasonable cases where Jesus reference has been inferred. But then Schafer's reference is shown in the film as "the mother of [whitespace] Jesus [whitespace] played the harlot with carpenters", "SANHEDRIN 106a - 106b", which is very misleading: it is presented to be easily misinterpretable as a Talmud quote, but "mother" and "Jesus" are not in the passage. The Talmud only mentions Balaam here; the conclusion that it also means Jesus is an inference, widely held and widely rejected, not a doctrine or dogma. Yebamoth 49b and Shabbath 104b are accurately quoted as passages that doesn't mention Jesus but some have applied to him. (Narrator then dizzyingly says "According to the Talmud" and continues with data not from Talmud but visibly supported from Jewish Encyclopedia instead; and rapidly merges in the much later Toledot Yeshu as if it's Talmud.) Yet Talmud does have quite a few probable digs at Jesus, without naming him so as to avoid commitment. Answer, yes.

Do some Jews take responsibiliity for killing Jesus? I admit he did get Schafer on record, whose book was shown to say, "We rightly executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death .... This heretic and impostor needed to be executed -- and we are proud of it." Rabbi Reuven Mann was rightly more cautious: "Maybe he deserved to die ..., maybe he's a troublemaker." And Ulla the Amora (about 300) also put himself on record. So indeed, individual Jews are free to accept the rabble-roused mob's frenzied claim under duress that they would take responsibility. But Conservative Rabbi Leo Abrami was cited as offended that 36% of Americans think Jews were responsible, with no comment by the producers as to how Mann and Schafer and Ulla contribute to fostering this opinion! Once again divergences are presented as if convergent. All the same, there are indeed individual rejections of Jesus, and these can be informally judged as repentable heresy from a Christian view; but they have no validity as doctrine, as noted by all the rabbis' reticence to directly join the professor or the amora. Answer, yes.

So far, he's doing well getting people on the record, and I'm impressed with the comportment and interaction of all the presenters, but the organization and spin of those facts can easiliy mislead those not aware of the subtleties compacted quickly. Professionally done and not severely vituperative (yet), it's merely an advocacy push that heavily emphasizes some of the known facts of the arena, often to the point of exaggeration. Jewry must choose between voices like outlier Schafer, and voices like those of the Messianics, and of course the vast majority of rabbis who are still trying to play both sides safely and to play noncommittal guides who wait for the populace to help lead them.

Next we transition into tropes that misread Scripture. Anderson preaches Acts 3:13, 17; this is not about all Jews, but was preached by Peter the Jew to Jerusalem Jews, who turned! "Many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand" (4:4). The very Jews that Peter accused repented immediately and constituted perhaps a thousand of the first five thousand followers of Jesus (Christians). Anderson calls the mob "thousands and thousands", but that number would not literally fit in the palace square, and he neglects the many observant Jews who were not in the mob because they were preparing for Passover; at Jesus's death, "all the people [or crowd] smote their breasts" in protest of the prior mob's and the government's actions. We have Jan 6, they had Nisan 14, it was wild.

I've explained Onkelos. This is directly intercut with Baptist Tim Coleman beginning, "They hate Jesus" (no antecedent), which is simply too generic; then there's an interesting audio cut in the ellipsis in the statement, "I think it's because they are ... children of the devil", suggesting Coleman was not willing to complete the sentence that bold way. So now we're getting into the subtle borderline between demographics and racism.

He moves to many Jews being secular (here he interview the Reform and the humanist, but not those who hold tight doctrines of inspiration). He shows that Jews have reinterpreted circumcision as counting even if only one drop of blood is shed rather than the full procedure; reinterpretation is of course something that all movements have in part, and again this is a matter of the right of a religion to determine canonically the definitions of words in their founding texts; the originalist debate is internal. Pastor David Berzins, same church as Anderson, says, "That is a lie, they don't believe God," which is another sweeping generalization because the observant minority does try to believe everything in the Old Testament. "There's no absolute, in my opinion," says the Reform rabbi, totally consistent with Reform if logically fallacious; yet this is not the opinion of the Orthodox and Conservative rabbis absent from this segment. Pastor Donnie Romero adds, Jesus said Moses agreed with him; yet the Jews are way past that, having authoritatively reinterpreted Moses so they don't need to review Jesus's statements. Finally the Conservative rabbi, not on a secularist proposition but instead on a works-theology proposition, denies a transforming salvation in favor of a self-salvation, and denies (interim) heaven and hell (he wasn't asked about the resurrection). Well, yeah, that's a fail, and those are common teachings within Judaism, not agreed by others; and they are common in lots of Christian sects too. Anderson's summary is that they don't literally believe many of the essentials of Torah (basically Genesis) and he asks what part of Torah they believe (it's well-known that Genesis is largely haggada and the other four books much more halakha, case law, which they thoroughly authorize). Well, as a literalist he may object to the allegoric approach, but the alternatives that he chastises (secularism and simplification) are problems common to all religions, and he isn't showing the core rabbis' views (who uphold the Torah as being literal and binding). I think the correct charge is that rabbis don't have a unique claim to the chain of custody of Torah, since Christians have several claims too; that there is a sketchy break in Jewish authority between 70 and 132 that needs to be acknowledged; and that Judaism's failure to address the race's majority secularism is a breach that needs fixing, just as Christians need to address often-majority secularism among their nations.

Abrupt topic change paints that Christian Zionism is bad and recent and Christian anti-Semitism is good and normative (Chrysostom, Luther, Augustine, Peter the Venerable, Calvin): "They're all saying the same thing about the Jews, that it's a synagogue of satan." Chrysostom was an anti-Semitic outlier; Augustine was more moderate and spoke primarily of the developed rabbinical religion, which is right to criticize; Peter the Venerable is so far from being an influential father that I don't care that much what he said. Luther was brash in whatever often contrary position he took, and in his youth he was very fervent about possibly evangelizing the Jews, and his later words were a reflection on that failed venture, so his position should not be taken as consistent. Calvin was very restrained (thus named last), and I doubt that he said an anti-Semitic word at all (as that word is limited to racism). This testimony to Christians struggling with Jewish obstinacy is not proof that racism is good. Next, we hear Zionism comes from Scofield who was bad and hung out with Jews; but like those of many breakout teachers, Scofield's extremes forced Christians to reevaluate their stance and compensate toward a medium. Dispensationalism, once redefined, was adopted as permissible, but that doesn't mean racism is Christian; rather, the covenant has always been for whomever believes. Any Jew or Gentile has always been welcome. I find the compensation made by the church at large, day by day, against any negative influence the Jews may have had upon Scofield, to be sufficient for each day.

Some misrepresentation, more oversimplification of the polylithic phenomena of Judaism and Christianity. Some Jews were overbad, some Christians were responsively overbad, the rest of us kept working on our problems, whether well-guided or misguided. Racism still lacks evidence. Dispensationalists is to be acknowledged but not overstated. If the goal were to present an authoritative statement that an organized body of Christians have sufficient evidence to regard Jews as a racial enemy, there are several steps missing from that goal in this presentation. If the OU, the USCJ, or the URJ (three primary American synagogue federations or "denoms"), or their rabbinical assemblies, taught something clearly objectionable, why we can say "the Jews" (e.g. the OU) teach it. They don't do that. We could say the URJ generally teaches moral relativism; that is heretical; we provide org-wide evidence; and we tell Christians to treat Reform Jews the same as atheists; but that would still not defend racism. The Reform would regroup, the Conservodox declaim our statement as not applicable, Judaism move on, and maybe one step be made against atheism. But racism adds nothing and corrupts much.

JP2 said, "Christian theological anti-Judaism is a phenomenon which is distinct from modern antisemitism." So a developed body of Christian rejection of Jewish theology exists without racism. When working reasonable anti-Judaism, why add the racism, "children of the devil", "that is a lie", "they hate Jesus", "it's a synagogue of satan" misapplied? These are harsh, unwarranted statements from anyone against anyone, speaking of knowing others' state of mind en masse, and should be limited to formal proofs in procedural settings. They are unworthy of documentary presentation.

Scofield convinced Christians to "bless Israel" as if a requirement? In part, but that's not what Scofield was quoted as saying, and Christians may be just as well reading Ps. 122:6, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem", or many others.

America and the Jews are not blessed? Very subjective answers.

Because of the Jews' "blasphemy toward Christianity and because of their predatory lending practices" they were ejected? Hmm, not really supported, instead we jump to explain Zionism as an introduction to the Rothschilds, then zoom ahead to the founding of Israel. (1) Judaism is no more blasphemous to Christianity than any other religion, because all religions that reject Christ "blaspheme" him equally. (Yet rejecting Jesus is not even a tenet of Judaism, it's something they work hard not to care about, if you will.) To say that all members of a religion, or especially of a race, commit blasphemy worthy of many national expulsions, based on a couple unofficial statements from among thousands of founding teachers, is to dramatically distort the evidence. The closest parallel is to say all the Arabs deserve to be expelled from dozens of countries because Arabs are mostly Muslim and a couple of ahadith speak against Jesus's deity (which they do); but nobody should denounce Arabs as a race for this. (2) Yes, Rothschilds established themselves and remain influential and may be the richest of all (who knows). That is not about every Jew. To say they were expelled because of joint predatory practices (providing evidence relating only after most of the expulsions) is to plant a racist seed without hard data.

Was it the will of God that Israel be founded? Whatever happens is God's choice for history! For the pastors to suggest otherwise demeans God.

Since 1948 was not accompanied by believing in God (as revealed to Christians), was it no move of God? "That was not God bringing back Israel because they believed in him," says Coleman. "He said he'd bring them back when they turned unto him, they have not turned unto him." Anderson adds, the spirit of antichrist brought them back. That's basically now a charge of satanism. If satan were involved, it would still have been permitted by our sovereign God. But more than that, we know it's God's plan because he told us this time he'd return them in unbelief! Ezek. 36:1-24 describes the return in unbelief in great detail; only after this does 25-38 indicate the people are later made holy again.

Continued.

Switch-up! Is the hexagram the Star of Remphan? I did independent study on this. Amos 5:26 mentions the "star of your god" Chiun, later identified as Remphan, when no polygrams of any kind were associated with Israel! Pentagrams and later hexagrams came in primarily through the Pythagoreans. So this star is shown by inspiration not to be the hexagram! (I concluded the star in question was the bronze idol Nehushtan or its symbol.) This anachronism doesn't prove "Jews serve satan"; we know everyone of any race who doesn't serve God as he has revealed himself, through his true Messiah Jesus, is in some way serving satan (no dualism, just that satan claims and benefits from all service not directed to God).

Can Jews be saved? Only by accepting God revealed. I say one can accept God rightly as revealed in Tanakh as long as one has not personally rejected Jesus as Messiah. Before Jesus came, those without revelation showed whether they accepted or rejected God's testimony through nature by their behavior and conscience, Rom. 2:14-15. After that, Jews ended up in the place of being without the revelation of the identity of Messiah, and they can still be judged by the rule of whether their actions show acceptance or rejection of God: like any other people-group partly reached with the truth. I have hope for all such races as the Bible teaches. Besides the nearly a million Messianics, it's still possible today for a Jew to come to know God without knowing the Messiah's name if he has not rejected that Messiah (and they have not rejected him corporately, though a few individuals have done so personally). And that truth applies the same to any other unreached tribe or community that believes a Creator exists but doesn't know enough specifics about him. The real problem is that Christians exempt the Jews from this rule of evangelism that applies to every other people!

Switch-up! Jews are connected to Masons? Jackie, maybe. The faulty arguments from symbolism are unpersuasive (straightedge, 90 degrees, is not equilateral, 60 degrees). Masonry is a syncretism mostly of Abrahamic faiths, well of course it sounds Jewish, it also sounds Christian! No proof the GAOTU is "Moloch", as if we've interviewed the idols; we should just stick to our basic knowledge that all the satanic idols are connected. Then:

Switch-up! Jesus cursed the Jews in John 8? Actually, only those among the leaders who had first believed in him and then disputed and insulted him repeatedly (see the whole course of the chapter), not anywhere near the whole race. Of course we know physical descendants of Abraham aren't always spiritual heirs of Abraham, but they are not excluded from returning! Even Abrami cites 8:44 and misquotes as "The Jews are the sons of the devil"! If a Jewish rabbi can misunderstand the NT about the Jews, it's likely we can misunderstand the Talmud about Jesus! Rather, Jesus spoke to "those Jews which believed on him" who didn't accept his charge "continue in my word", 8:31. The gospel was preached by and among Jews, and many tens of thousands of them believed (literal myriads, Acts 21:20), and these Jews obviously were spiritual children of Abraham; so there was no racial curse from Jesus's preaching. In Acts 3-4, many of the very mob that called for his death came to be saved.

Who is the synagogue of satan? First, Jesus said they're not Jews. If we said he means they're not real spiritual Jews, well, then he'd mean some Jews in Philadelphia/Smyrna, but of course not the Christians from among the Jews. Jesus the Jew said this to John the Jew, so it cannot mean the whole race; it means a network that had infected these two cities only. We don't get to extrapolate this as a racial slur.

Who are the antichrists? The clever idea of limiting this to people that believe a messiah exists doesn't work in the other definitional passages. 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7 say who won't confess "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" is an antichrist, so belief in "messiah" is no prerequisite to being antichrist, but rejection of the central message of Jesus.

Denying Jesus? Reuven Mann was willing to say, "If the claim is made that he's a Messiah, then he's a false Messiah." But note, the question is still out on whether he even claimed that, because the Messianic title in Judaism is so redefined onto the national deliverance aspect! So he carefully keeps himself off the hook of speaking directly against Jesus's title. But then Anderson goes to: "We know that that other messiah that's coming is the antichrist". Not quite that simple! Of course antichrist will deceive many Jews and many Gentiles, but there's no reason for many Jews and many Gentiles not to turn to Jesus at that hour too. They are not nationally pledged to either! Each individual will decide; the race has not decided. Rabbi Jeremy Gimpel's statement is similarly two-edged, and often heard: "We will all kneel before the king, do you know what I mean, whoever that is. So, your vision of that, you say it's the second coming." Literally, that means if it's Jesus, sobeit, we'll still only count it as his first coming as Messiah (a narrowing of definition shared by several in this video, but confusing to many Christians). Yet it can also permit a false messiah, and that is the range of openness that encourages our evangel.

So will all (the bulk of) Israel be saved? Anderson rightly points out the devil's antichrist strategy, but then misreads Rom. 11 as if it teaches the tautology that all the saved will be saved. No; he means "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [chosen] hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Physical Israel was split in two so the Gentiles could be brought in, and, once they are, Israel will receive its healing. Eschatologically, this happens a long time after sifting and testing by the initial deception of antichrist; but this complex plan to outwit the devil's scheme requires consulting many Scriptures so we often get only pieces of it.

Bless Israel? 2 John 1:9-11 cannot be taken as saying that to bless those without Christ is automatically to partake of their evil deeds, because Jesus says, "Bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). (Rather, John is not speaking of general blessing, but those among people who "come ... unto you" (1:10), in context who present themselves as having a message for the church.) Hagee mistakenly said, "Everyone else ... needs to believe in Jesus ... but not Jews". I don't know if Hagee has moved on from that, or if it's a semantic game, but of course that sentiment as ordinarily understood does not ultimately bless Israel; they have the same need as any other nation. Instead, they can (see above) only be saved and "brothers" if they accept God on his own terms and not reject the Messiah at the time in their lives he is pleased to reveal himself to them. We want Jews to have the truth, requiring sensitivity to their desire not to be evangelized and skillful presentation of truth that overcomes their fear: this is why a slogan of Jews for Jesus is to make the Messiahship of Jesus an "unavoidable issue" for Jews worldwide.

Politics? Not that interested; yes, the Jewish-Evangelical lobby is strong, but it only works if both sides recognize the truths I'm pointing out, so they don't fall prey to Anderson's criticisms. The idea that Jehoshaphat of Judah was not to support Israel when it was ungodly may be a valid principle, though a bit misleading in presentation; but Christians take both sides on this nonessential question.

Does Israel have narrow citizenship laws and tight antimissionary provisions? Absolutely! Which makes it just another of the creative-access countries so familiar to spreaders of the truth of Jesus. Gay Tel Aviv, same point.

Kabbalah? Yes, Hagee said Washington wanted the hexagram and Shekhinah to be on the dollar (Washington only spoke of the great seal and it was Roosevelt who put it on the dollar; so that's overreach). The glory of God is Biblical and must be understood as it is, and it is called "shakan". So Shekhinah is not wrong if used consistent with Biblical glory. The masculinity of Father, Son, and Spirit is emphatic, but the occasional Scriptures that speak of his feminine aspects, most notably as Wisdom in Prov. 8-9, must be understood as they are presented: not as some sexual duality but as an expression of God's total overarching character. (Anderson implies a dangerous idea, that only males are in the image of God; rather, first usage (Gen. 1:26) is, "Let us make man in our image ... and let them have dominion", and "man" is "them".)

Genealogy (which turns out to be the last point besides the gospel): Much time wasted. One good point, there's high likelihood that many or most people have at least one Jewish person somewhere earlier in the tree; but that doesn't define Jewishness, which is determined only by matrilineality or conversion. The Jewish populace still has self-definition rights to determine who is a member, just like any other race that doesn't want to be watered down.

Spiritual covenant aspects have always stayed with the covenant people even as those people became largely Gentile and called "Christians"; national covenant aspects have always, like any national covenant, related solely to the physical and been passed down to a people as self-defined. The divergence of these two covenants leads to much mystery, resolved as soon as it is seen.

Jews are not satanist by birth; rabbinical Jews are not necessarily satanist by religion any more than any non-Christian religion. But the vast body of Jewish thought keeping many of them from committing outright rejection of Jesus as Messiah is neglected. It is because they have been entrusted with all the Hebrew Scriptures that they have, in every generation, all the tools the disciples had to come to faith in Jesus. As a people they have been in a holding pattern ever since, constantly forced to face the same question of Jesus's identity over all generations, as so many other nations pass them by in becoming evangelized with the good news. They are still an unreached people, in some ways the last one! They resist evangelism more than the remotest tribe, and with more power. Even if someone were to tell me directly he was a son of satan, I would still hold out hope for him while he is alive. I can do no less with the people from whom my Bible and my Messiah came.

Many tropes, choppy themes. The gospel to all races Jew and Gentile could've unified. The video ends with the gospel, but I daresay that the producers would've complied with the standard that all the Jews interviewed would've insisted, that their appearances would be predicated on the implicit condition that they not be "evangelized". Instead, give the same gospel to both Jew and Gentile, to escape the charge of believing (like Hagee is charged with thinking) that Jews are unwinnable to the current gospel. The producers seem to state that no Jews were evangelized during the making of this film. Maybe they believe it fruitless, that the people are too far gone.

Their goal is to claim the true Zion and "replace" all Jewish promises. But failing to see spiritual vs. national promise, the land covenant remains invisible to the producers. Then these slightly-spun points get used as fodder for spin beyond recognition and really monstrous racism, which Anderson avoids showing. So were the positive features, the interactive dialogue, the vignettes about Jewish oddities, the genealogical argument, worth the imbalance and spin? It's hard to say the strengths overcame the weaknesses. The need for remediation is much clearer than the effectiveness of the whole presentation.

Footnote: The Church of England has "some correction" to "chosen" Jews: "God’s will is for all people to enter into the renewed covenant in Christ’s blood .... Jewish people therefore need to discover and respond to this divine gift as God’s irrevocably chosen people" (p. 30 ff.). Concerns of fundamentalist members are held as legitimate to present to Jews without fear of reprisal. That's how it's done. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis affirmed this, questioning only "targeting of Jews for conversion to Christianity." I answer, "Convert to God" (Ps. 51:13, shuv). Find God's new covenant in Messiah. They've never said it's impossible to return to unity or to continue dialogue.

How might dialogue with Jews proceed instead? In the Sanhedrin section of the Talmud, when all the rabbis are making puns about how the Messiah will be named after them, why doesn't Rabbi Yehoshua make a pun about his own name, but changes the subject instead? Is it for the same reason that Zechariah says that High Priest Yehoshua from his day would have a name connected with the Branch of God, the Messiah? Do the Jews still look for the prophet like unto Moshe, who appointed no successor other than General Yehoshua son of Nun? Why do the commentaries on the Talmud admit that there will be two Messiahs, not only the son of David who will reign, but also a "son of Joseph" (!) who will be humble? Why does the Talmud teach that there is a special Angel of the Lord who has the privilege to stand before the Lord as an equal, almost like the Son of Man in Daniel 7, even though it is taught that there is otherwise no such standing before the Lord? Why does Rabbi Simlai present arguments for the corporate unity of God when debating separatists who sound like early tritheists? Why did the rabbi in this video reiterate that the Shekhinah is One with God the Father and yet distinctions can be made between them, exactly as we speak of Spirit and Father? Why do rabbis act like they worship the Torah, especially in the annual festivals, not the synagogue scroll but the eternal Message of God it contains? Why does every Passover seder have exactly three matzah slices, where the second of three is broken in half, one half remaining with the others and the other half wrapped and hidden secretly, and then sought and found and brought out later as the last part of the meal, the "afikomen" (the one coming afterward), the last slice of unleavened bread presented with the last cups of wine, the same bread and wine that Jesus called his body and blood in that annual meal? Why do rabbis read Isaiah 52 and 54 in the prophetic cycle but not 53? Since the suffering servant of 53 is distinguished from sinful Israel and yet is also Israel, wouldn't that mean in fact that he represents the best of Israel, possibly the best one alone out of all Israel? How will Israel mourn for the one they have pierced as for a firstborn son, according to Zechariah? Can you see why I'm excited about the Jewish sources? Why does the Talmud say that everyone who approaches heaven will be asked by the Father, "Did you accept the salvation of my Messiah?"?

An old "liveblog" review of this video.

Do Jews think Talmud supersedes Torah? If so, it would be idolatrous. Orthodox Rabbi Reuven Mann says, "[Talmud] is inspired by God"; this is like saying the KJV is inspired by God, and usually not like saying the autographs of Scripture were inspired. Reform Rabbi Irwin Wiener says, "Everything that has anything to do with Scripture is regarded as Scripture by a large segment" (including the Talmud). Yet the Orthodox believe that the Reform's definition of Scripture as human creation is sectarian; so this gloss doesn't amount to supersession, and it's misleading to set the Reform claim up as if supportive of the Orthodox statement rather than contrary to it. Now, in Eruvin 21b, Rava says, "My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah", because Sages (literally scribes, office not texts) can invoke liability to death and Torah can't. This too is not widely taken as a claim of Jewish supersession. No primary body of Jews regards Talmud as overriding Torah on any point, though it's understandable many regard Talmud as relatively "superior" in many respects. Answer, no.

Does Talmud clearly denigrate Jesus by name? The one clear passage begins, "Yeshu was hanged" (Sanhedrin 43a). (Sefaria indicates belief that "the Nazarene" is inherent to the Yeshu specified.) There Ulla charges him as an "inciter" to idolatry, meaning that is his opinion but not taken as the judgment of Talmud. A legendary anecdote then says five of Yeshu's disciples were executed (not far from true if understood broadly), giving formulaic Tanakh puns to explain why each of their (common) names prophesies their execution. This passage is not directly objectionable. So, yeah, the Talmud teaches that Ulla later approved the death of Yeshu, probably Jesus, but it does not take an independent moral position on his death or his charges there. Answer, no.

Does Talmud contain indirect denigration applicable to Jesus? Most important here is the misleading presentation of quotes. Sanhedrin 106a says Rav Pappa cited the proverb "This woman was descended from princes and rulers, and was licentious with carpenters" comparing the woman to Balaam. Peter Schafer, "Jesus in the Talmud", believes it can apply indirectly to Jesus's family, which is a valid position within Judaism; he reviews encyclopedically all reasonable cases where Jesus reference has been inferred. But then Schafer's reference is shown in the film as "the mother of [whitespace] Jesus [whitespace] played the harlot with carpenters", "SANHEDRIN 106a - 106b", which is very misleading: it is presented to be easily misinterpretable as a Talmud quote, but "mother" and "Jesus" are not in the passage. The Talmud only mentions Balaam here; the conclusion that it also means Jesus is an inference, widely held and widely rejected, not a doctrine or dogma. Yebamoth 49b and Shabbath 104b are accurately quoted as passages that doesn't mention Jesus but some have applied to him. (Narrator then dizzyingly says "According to the Talmud" and continues with data not from Talmud but visibly supported from Jewish Encyclopedia instead; and rapidly merges in the much later Toledot Yeshu as if it's Talmud.) Yet Talmud does have quite a few probable digs at Jesus, without naming him so as to avoid commitment. Answer, yes.

Do some Jews take responsibiliity for killing Jesus? I admit he did get Schafer on record, whose book was shown to say, "We rightly executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death .... This heretic and impostor needed to be executed -- and we are proud of it." Rabbi Reuven Mann was rightly more cautious: "Maybe he deserved to die ..., maybe he's a troublemaker." And Ulla the Amora (about 300) also put himself on record. So indeed, individual Jews are free to accept the rabble-roused mob's frenzied claim under duress that they would take responsibility. But Conservative Rabbi Leo Abrami was cited as offended that 36% of Americans think Jews were responsible, with no comment by the producers as to how Mann and Schafer and Ulla contribute to fostering this opinion! Once again divergences are presented as if convergent. All the same, there are indeed individual rejections of Jesus, and these can be informally judged as repentable heresy from a Christian view; but they have no validity as doctrine, as noted by all the rabbis' reticence to directly join the professor or the amora. Answer, yes.

So far, he's doing well getting people on the record, and I'm impressed with the comportment and interaction of all the presenters, but the organization and spin of those facts can easiliy mislead those not aware of the subtleties compacted quickly. Professionally done and not severely vituperative (yet), it's merely an advocacy push that heavily emphasizes some of the known facts of the arena, often to the point of exaggeration. Jewry must choose between voices like outlier Schafer, and voices like those of the Messianics, and of course the vast majority of rabbis who are still trying to play both sides safely and to play noncommittal guides who wait for the populace to help lead them.

Next we transition into tropes that misread Scripture. Anderson preaches Acts 3:13, 17; this is not about all Jews, but was preached by Peter the Jew to Jerusalem Jews, who turned! "Many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand" (4:4). The very Jews that Peter accused repented immediately and constituted perhaps a thousand of the first five thousand followers of Jesus (Christians). Anderson calls the mob "thousands and thousands", but that number would not literally fit in the palace square, and he neglects the many observant Jews who were not in the mob because they were preparing for Passover; at Jesus's death, "all the people [or crowd] smote their breasts" in protest of the prior mob's and the government's actions. We have Jan 6, they had Nisan 14, it was wild.

I've explained Onkelos. This is directly intercut with Baptist Tim Coleman beginning, "They hate Jesus" (no antecedent), which is simply too generic; then there's an interesting audio cut in the ellipsis in the statement, "I think it's because they are ... children of the devil", suggesting Coleman was not willing to complete the sentence that bold way. So now we're getting into the subtle borderline between demographics and racism.

He moves to many Jews being secular (here he interview the Reform and the humanist, but not those who hold tight doctrines of inspiration). He shows that Jews have reinterpreted circumcision as counting even if only one drop of blood is shed rather than the full procedure; reinterpretation is of course something that all movements have in part, and again this is a matter of the right of a religion to determine canonically the definitions of words in their founding texts; the originalist debate is internal. Pastor David Berzins, same church as Anderson, says, "That is a lie, they don't believe God," which is another sweeping generalization because the observant minority does try to believe everything in the Old Testament. "There's no absolute, in my opinion," says the Reform rabbi, totally consistent with Reform if logically fallacious; yet this is not the opinion of the Orthodox and Conservative rabbis absent from this segment. Pastor Donnie Romero adds, Jesus said Moses agreed with him; yet the Jews are way past that, having authoritatively reinterpreted Moses so they don't need to review Jesus's statements. Finally the Conservative rabbi, not on a secularist proposition but instead on a works-theology proposition, denies a transforming salvation in favor of a self-salvation, and denies (interim) heaven and hell (he wasn't asked about the resurrection). Well, yeah, that's a fail, and those are common teachings within Judaism, not agreed by others; and they are common in lots of Christian sects too. Anderson's summary is that they don't literally believe many of the essentials of Torah (basically Genesis) and he asks what part of Torah they believe (it's well-known that Genesis is largely haggada and the other four books much more halakha, case law, which they thoroughly authorize). Well, as a literalist he may object to the allegoric approach, but the alternatives that he chastises (secularism and simplification) are problems common to all religions, and he isn't showing the core rabbis' views (who uphold the Torah as being literal and binding). I think the correct charge is that rabbis don't have a unique claim to the chain of custody of Torah, since Christians have several claims too; that there is a sketchy break in Jewish authority between 70 and 132 that needs to be acknowledged; and that Judaism's failure to address the race's majority secularism is a breach that needs fixing, just as Christians need to address often-majority secularism among their nations.

Abrupt topic change paints that Christian Zionism is bad and recent and Christian anti-Semitism is good and normative (Chrysostom, Luther, Augustine, Peter the Venerable, Calvin): "They're all saying the same thing about the Jews, that it's a synagogue of satan." Chrysostom was an anti-Semitic outlier; Augustine was more moderate and spoke primarily of the developed rabbinical religion, which is right to criticize; Peter the Venerable is so far from being an influential father that I don't care that much what he said. Luther was brash in whatever often contrary position he took, and in his youth he was very fervent about possibly evangelizing the Jews, and his later words were a reflection on that failed venture, so his position should not be taken as consistent. Calvin was very restrained (thus named last), and I doubt that he said an anti-Semitic word at all (as that word is limited to racism). This testimony to Christians struggling with Jewish obstinacy is not proof that racism is good. Next, we hear Zionism comes from Scofield who was bad and hung out with Jews; but like those of many breakout teachers, Scofield's extremes forced Christians to reevaluate their stance and compensate toward a medium. Dispensationalism, once redefined, was adopted as permissible, but that doesn't mean racism is Christian; rather, the covenant has always been for whomever believes. Any Jew or Gentile has always been welcome. I find the compensation made by the church at large, day by day, against any negative influence the Jews may have had upon Scofield, to be sufficient for each day.

Some misrepresentation, more oversimplification of the polylithic phenomena of Judaism and Christianity. Some Jews were overbad, some Christians were responsively overbad, the rest of us kept working on our problems, whether well-guided or misguided. Racism still lacks evidence. Dispensationalists is to be acknowledged but not overstated. If the goal were to present an authoritative statement that an organized body of Christians have sufficient evidence to regard Jews as a racial enemy, there are several steps missing from that goal in this presentation. If the OU, the USCJ, or the URJ (three primary American synagogue federations or "denoms"), or their rabbinical assemblies, taught something clearly objectionable, why we can say "the Jews" (e.g. the OU) teach it. They don't do that. We could say the URJ generally teaches moral relativism; that is heretical; we provide org-wide evidence; and we tell Christians to treat Reform Jews the same as atheists; but that would still not defend racism. The Reform would regroup, the Conservodox declaim our statement as not applicable, Judaism move on, and maybe one step be made against atheism. But racism adds nothing and corrupts much.

JP2 said, "Christian theological anti-Judaism is a phenomenon which is distinct from modern antisemitism." So a developed body of Christian rejection of Jewish theology exists without racism. When working reasonable anti-Judaism, why add the racism, "children of the devil", "that is a lie", "they hate Jesus", "it's a synagogue of satan" misapplied? These are harsh, unwarranted statements from anyone against anyone, speaking of knowing others' state of mind en masse, and should be limited to formal proofs in procedural settings. They are unworthy of documentary presentation.

Scofield convinced Christians to "bless Israel" as if a requirement? In part, but that's not what Scofield was quoted as saying, and Christians may be just as well reading Ps. 122:6, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem", or many others.

America and the Jews are not blessed? Very subjective answers.

Because of the Jews' "blasphemy toward Christianity and because of their predatory lending practices" they were ejected? Hmm, not really supported, instead we jump to explain Zionism as an introduction to the Rothschilds, then zoom ahead to the founding of Israel. (1) Judaism is no more blasphemous to Christianity than any other religion, because all religions that reject Christ "blaspheme" him equally. (Yet rejecting Jesus is not even a tenet of Judaism, it's something they work hard not to care about, if you will.) To say that all members of a religion, or especially of a race, commit blasphemy worthy of many national expulsions, based on a couple unofficial statements from among thousands of founding teachers, is to dramatically distort the evidence. The closest parallel is to say all the Arabs deserve to be expelled from dozens of countries because Arabs are mostly Muslim and a couple of ahadith speak against Jesus's deity (which they do); but nobody should denounce Arabs as a race for this. (2) Yes, Rothschilds established themselves and remain influential and may be the richest of all (who knows). That is not about every Jew. To say they were expelled because of joint predatory practices (providing evidence relating only after most of the expulsions) is to plant a racist seed without hard data.

Was it the will of God that Israel be founded? Whatever happens is God's choice for history! For the pastors to suggest otherwise demeans God.

Since 1948 was not accompanied by believing in God (as revealed to Christians), was it no move of God? "That was not God bringing back Israel because they believed in him," says Coleman. "He said he'd bring them back when they turned unto him, they have not turned unto him." Anderson adds, the spirit of antichrist brought them back. That's basically now a charge of satanism. If satan were involved, it would still have been permitted by our sovereign God. But more than that, we know it's God's plan because he told us this time he'd return them in unbelief! Ezek. 36:1-24 describes the return in unbelief in great detail; only after this does 25-38 indicate the people are later made holy again.

Continued.

Looks like you regained about 967 contribs in 5 minutes. Well, that answers my question as to content. Looks like only the noosed Jesus remains hidden, as it's of a different character than all the rest.

Of the many distortions of the plain meaning of various words, one is the idea that Christians worshipped government. When Jesus said give to God what is God's, everyone in the audience knew that Man bears God's image just as coins bear Caesar's. The universe is God's. Within that, Caesar can generally have his worthless NFT's. When the question is put to practice (Acts 4-5), Peter first says, judge whether we must obey God rather than men, and then says (you judged wrong), we must obey God rather than men! If the two disagree, the choice is clear, if they don't disagree, we can obey authorities for civil purposes as far as conscience permits, which each man judges responsibly. I have whole books on Romans 13 to this effect.

You wouldn't know of all the genocides imagined by man that were stopped by God because they didn't happen. So it's a narrow view to argue only from those genocides that he does permit. The fact is that, if you want to argue statistically, a finite number of deaths among Jesus's followers, which are scheduled to end at a certain point in history, can always be overcome by a much larger number of blessing-filled lives in his millennial kingdom and beyond. So, if the plan holds, the free rein that Jesus gives to mankind, allowing a certain number of failed manifestations of rebellious free will, is well worth the blessings we have today and to come.

The only objection people raise is the evidence leading them to believe the plan won't hold. Well, of course free will leads to such evidence being plentiful. The good news is you don't have to believe the enemy's propaganda about its own wins. The reign of Christ in people's lives is always growing and when you're involved with that it doesn't matter to you to hear about evil in the world because you know it'll be smashed and you'll take opportunities to smash what is local to you, backed by the reign of Christ.

Are you interested in the evidence for this hope?

u/Elvis_Interstellar strikes me as tolerant more than subversive. Near as I can tell, "all products welcome" and "don't ask questions" are the orders of the day. This makes for low-hanging fruit for brigades, but that seems to be ConPro culture. The interdependencies among various "free-speech" communities here are kaleidoscopically fascinating.

Wow, that's a lot to infer from my simple answer to your question. Are you saying your username is sarcastic?

No, I can't speak to Jesus's relationship with u/TallestSkil, I just know that Skil claims it exists and so I'm holding him to that.

On the long view, the pedophile network has indeed grown, but the living network of active followers of Jesus has grown to amazing levels at the same time. Eschatological battles primarily arise over which growth is doing better, but that's a horserace I've stopped watching, as it's not the true contest. The true contest for me is whether I'm taking authority, on Jesus's behalf, over every part of the world I come in contact with; and that's one that only he can judge me on. We conference daily. By this means my victory is assured and I don't need to sweat the whether or when because I'm active in the how and now.

So if you're looking for good news, I have it aplenty. If your intent is just to share bad news without looking for hope, oh well.

Weird: While I write, u/UnscoredBot is undeleting hundreds of your comments. Will review.

Well, to that one question, it was that he could see that perfect obedience would allow him to rise from the dead and share that victory later with all who are in him as we defeat evil with sword and army at sometime in the future. Much more effective that way on the longterm scale. Failure to understand this usually arises from taking a narrow view.

Yes, what were you questioning from the Bible? That's what's not clear, as they usually don't chafe at Bible memes per se even in bulk. Was that Jesus in a noose?

What was your message behind your spamming them with 11 posts in 2 hours, fren?

Thank you for reposting this to Scored Christianity! I've contextualized the data there.

TLDR: Not Hebrew Roots but Sacred Namers, an easily distinguishable overlapping set. Among other clarifications, it is true that the "dzh" sound of J instead of the "y" sound was snuck into English, very discordantly, around the 16th century, but this fact is overplayed about three sizes too much in the SNM.

The real Dumuzid the Shepherd was Abel, he's one of the earliest whose stories got perverted, it's all just been slop on top since then.