CathInfo.com

He said "Jesus became a devil" using the exact wording that he used to say "Jesus became sin," meaning it the same way. Whether one translates it as "sin" or "sin offering" it refers to the expiation of our sins on the Cross by taking them upon Himself.  "Jesus became sin (offering)" is a traditional, orthodox teaching and does not mean that Our Lord ever sinned.  It does not contradict the fact of his sinlessness.

Obviously "Jesus became the devil" seems wrong when taken in isolation, but this was a basically sound meditation taken as a whole.  It is unfortunate that this is distracting you from more serious problems in the papacy.

This is pure rubbish! Make all of the excuses you want, delude yourself to your heart’s content. This is not charity this is delusional or willful ignorance.

I did already say that I thought this was the more likely theory for the origin of Yeshu.  But it is a big leap to go from this being the origin of the word to saying all Jews are aware of it and intend the word as an insult when they use it.

My view is not coming a theological position, but from studying linguistics as an undergrad.  It is very common for people to speak a language without any awareness of the origins of the words in it.  That is typically the norm.  So I do not assume that Chagall intended an insult with the use of the word "Yeshu".

Even without that assumption I think that identifying that as a favourite painting is disturbing and shocking.  It is such a thoroughly unChristian picture that it ought to create feelings of revulsion in a Catholic.  Chagall co-opted Christian imagery to further the Jєωιѕн narrative.  He made the Saviour into a symbol of Jews.  It is simply wrong.

To hell with your "all Jews" straw man— precisely your style that prompted me to ask if you are a marrano.

I provided three specific examples: (1) the Jew slut who clearly intended to insult Jesus, (2) the Chasidic artist "Chagall," and (3) Jorge. Not once did I or anyone mention "all Jews."

Example (1): Watch the video and tell me with a straight face that slut didn't know or intend to insult Jesus.
Example (2): BeShT, the founder of Chagall's Chasidic sect was intimately familiar with the Toledot Yeshu, the very same docuмent that is the earliest known printed example of the acronym. Chagall is docuмented to be a fervent and throughly schooled Chasid, yet you advance the maybe-he-didn't-know-it-was-an-insult nonsense, putting a Chasidic-dressed "Yeshu" in the center of Jews' perceived woes with rabbis flying like angels over "Yeshu." Chagall did not "co-opt" Christian imagery; he perverted it.
Example (3): Jorge has boasted for decades of his study of and affinity for тαℓмυdic/kabbalistic/chasidic Judaism, specifically Chasidism of the Toledot Yeshu type, yet you again advance the maybe-he-didn't-know-it-was-an-insult nonsense.

Do "all Jews" know the acronymic insult? No. Do many know and use the acronymic insult? Yes!  In fact, the first time I learned of the insult was from a Jew co-worker who was laughing about stupid goyim who unknowingly used the Yeshu name, instead of Yeshua. He thought it was hilarious that the goyim made a pretense of using Hebrew without knowing their Hebrew was an insult.

Your "revulsion" is as credible as crocodile tears.