Within the first five minutes:
False premises:
1) We must follow the Judaism because the prophets knew the world was not flat.
2) Christians believe there is no use for the Torah because Jesus came and now we "don't have to do anything." (I guess we just keep the OT in our Bibles to make it thicker and a better paper weight.)
3) "Everyone" has a problem with this Oral Torah.
4) We must follow the Oral Torah because it is divine (and ignore other divine revelation, I suppose).
No idea:
1) Avoda Zara is about benefiting from broken statues/idols. The rabbi then goes on to use the example of a picture of a man holding a ball and how this symbolizes someone in control of the earth (a ball and the earth both being a sphere). But there is no mention of a ball, just broken statues. And the rabbi uses the example of "a picture" of a man holding a ball, which isn't in the text (maybe it is buried deep in the Hebrew or he failed to provide that reference). Shouldn't the rabbi also be excited that the prophets also knew what pictures were?
Next five minutes:
1) I have no problem with his beliefs of Jews not practicing Judaism having their "Judaism on suspension" or, essentially, cultural Jews versus practicing Jews. Christians can be lumped into the same two buckets.
2) What proof is there that the Torah is really from God? Evidence is great, but Christians and Jews don't disagree on this.
3) All sea creatures are predicted? Those with scales and fins, and those without? That isn't a prediction, it's specific grouping and a second grouping that is labeled "everything else". That information ABSOLUTELY could come from mankind. That's like me saying "all space aliens that are carbon-based and oxygen breathing, and all other space aliens."
4) Then he goes to say that the Torah predicts that "all fish who have scales will also have fins". The Torah does not state that (Lev. 11:9 - "These you may eat of all that live in water; anything in water, whether in the seas or in the streams, that has fins and scalesthese you may eat.") It also is flawed logic in that the very definition of a "fish" (a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water) means the creature has to have fins. If a creature has scales and no fins, it isn't a fish, so that isn't a prediction at all, but he really tries to drive that home around the nine minute mark.
Third five minutes:
1) You are what you eat is a stretch. "I fell asleep reading Torah!" Uhhhh...ok.
2) Divine knowledge of every animal that will ever exist - split hooves and chews its cud...the same flawed logic of sea creatures that are kosher and "all other sea creatures" that are not. It is also interesting to note that for the fish he seemed excited to claim that no fish had scales and no fins (disregarding the very biological definition), but the rabbi seems content with "only four" land animals that fit one of the criteria and not both.
-----
That's either really bad propaganda or the rabbi is extremely ignorant.