Know Thy Talmud #1 (The Talmud Conspiracy)
Know Thy Talmud #3 (What You Need to Know)
If the Talmud is quite evil, surly it must be easy to just link to an online version and cite it talking about how to kill all non-jews, steal from them or enslave them? Actually no, if it was that easy, then everyone on the planet would have already known about the Jewish Talmudic problem, you just can't expect an online Talmud version put up by an ex-google engineer to really put it out on the open now would you?
You can't easily cite the evils in the Talmud for the following reasons:
1-The Talmud is massive, in some prints, well over 20 volumes! And that's just the Babylonian Talmud, there is the Palestinian Talmud (Considered less credible), and there is the mystic version, the Zohar, and there are many, many more books and commentaries or abridged versions. In addition the Talmud (Babylonian), its laws (Mishna) are written in special Hebrew, you can't just study ordinary Hebrew to understand it correctly, the commentary and explanatory parts (Gemara) are written in Aramaic (anyone remember when Israeli ISIS tried to destroy the only city in existence which speaks it (Maaloula, Syria)), The Palestinian Talmud Gemara is written in different form of Aramaic (Western). And I can go on and on, basically it's quite difficult to wade through the Talmud for its size and ancient language, Christian Europe only discovered its evil around the 13th century!! And it happened through the few jewish converts such as (Nicolas Donin, Pablo Christiani, Johannes Pfefferkorn)
Additionally, there has been many disputations, such as the Lwów disputation in September 1759 involving Jacob Frank.
2-Because the Talmud was discovered to be evil on various occasions which led to pogroms and its burnings (France 1242, in addition to Rome and Barcelona); "Clean" or "Expurgated" versions of the Talmud were eventually used while the "original" versions hidden in synagogues. One of the first expurgated versions was one printed in Basil 1578-1581. The versions which contain all the clear references are the Venice version printed in 1520-1523 by Daniel Bomberg, and the Amsterdam version printed in 1644-1648. If you want a hint to know that you are on to something, try buying one of those version or any old Talmud versions for that matter!!!
In short: Due to government and self censorship, all "modern" Talmud versions do not have the exact clear terms, instead they are deleted or renamed with words the Rabbis understand, (Jesus sometimes renamed into "the one whose memory shall be erased" etc..)
If this is the case, then how do we know about its evils? There are still references of those who examined those issues such as: Talmud Unmasked
Additionally there are many books on the subject, unfortunately these books are disappearing by the day! Please do save the info I have written and the PDFs I linked such as the Talmud Unmasked.
As I explained, "Yeshu" was a name before it was an acronym, so any reader would understand first it meant anyone with a Joshua-derived name, and applying the acronym to it centuries later was an added redefinition. There was no scenario in which "Yeshu" was replaced with the phrase, the phrase was replaced with the acronym (still "Yeshu"), and the original name was lost; that's all a misinterpretation.
We do have an acronym "Akum" meaning "star and constellation worshipper", which is a euphemism for idolators including Christians. That doesn't affect much because any castigation of idolators is likely valid and the missing piece of whether Christians are idolators is never directly addressed. In Talmudic times all sectarians (minim) were treated alike and there was never a time when Christians (who started out as just a Jewish sect) were singled out. In medieval times there is some objection to "lords of three", but this likely means tritheists in context (apostates among Christians), as the Jewish stream of thought did not have any language by which it could directly reject trinitarians.
So most statements against groups, even if we assume they are codenames, have the features that (1) they are not officially, or normatively, against Christians, and (2) if they mean Christians among a group of Jews then that coding has no effect outside its reach and can only be rejected when it is made clear. For instance, it seems to me that a few people here use the word "jogger" to indicate a particular race. These users can always say they didn't mean anything other than one who jogs, and if they are actually using the word to communicate evil intent then nobody outside can catch them without formal proof. We can argue that this looks duplicitous and double-dealing, but we can't use statements about joggers, out of context, to prove to an outsider that the evil intent is present. Should we then regard all users of the word "jogger" as racist? Of course not.