I don't think that the Jews who rejected Jesus believed that He was starting a new religion. They did not reject His beliefs; they rejected and still reject the notion that a meshiach is God. To them that's like the LDS saying that Jesus' brother is Satan, or that Blessed Theotokos conceived by the "Holy Spirit overshadowing her" (implying it was a carnal union), as understood in biblical terms elsewhere.
Without His divnity Christianity would to this day remain a Jewish sect.
"They did not reject His beliefs; they rejected and still reject the notion that a meshiach is God."
Of course. That is not what was at issue. I was responding to qua's comment to you (pinging several others of us): "What is clear is that, at least in your position although it isn't clear that it is the consensus opinion, there must be a radical discontinuity with the revealed religon of the Old Testament Jews."
If one believes that the Judaism of the Pharisees and their successors down to the modern day represents the true religion of the patriarchs and prophets (which is what I think he was taking you to be saying -- I'm not as sure that this is what you were meaning to say), then qua would be right about this radical discontinuity.
My post was meant merely to address the "consensus" part of qua's statement by pointing out the traditional Orthodox Christian self-understanding of continuity to the best of my ability. Subsequent polemics with Judaism, beginning with the NT and continuing into the patristic era, were consistent in the assertion that Christianity was what represented the true continuity with the faith of the patriarchs and prophets. One can agree or disagree with this self-understanding but it is what it was and is.
The Christian tradition indicated that there was sufficient evidence in the Scriptures that the Messiah would be God. It does not indicate that this was something that should have been clearly anticipated, but does indicate that when considered in the light of the words and acts of Christ, that it was there for all to see and understand. The acts of Christ recorded in the Gospels are clearly meant to demonstrate Christ's divinity.
Beyond that, to someone who knew the Scriptures, his acts would reflect to the sensitive and seeking soul that Christ was the very Lord God of the OT. He controlled the winds and waves of the sea just as the Lord God did at the parting of the Red Sea. He multiplied the loaves and the fishes, recreating the manna from heaven in the wilderness with which he fed the children of Israel. He healed the sick, raised the dead -- going so far as to raise the 4-days dead Lazarus to make sure that it was clear that there was no mistake about it, etc... He did things only God could do. He preached with an authority that only God could have.
When the apostles proclaimed him their "Lord and God," they were doing so with an eye-opening sense of "so this is what the prophets were talking about!"
We have discussed some of the differences between the LXX and the MT of the OT, and some of the points at issue in later polemics between Judaism and Christianity over the text of the OT were precisely passages which in the LXX were more clear in presaging the Godhood of the coming Christ.
The evidence according to the New Testament is that the Jewish leadership (secular and religious alike) didn't want a Messiah -- God or not. Herod tried to kill him as soon as he was born, the religious leadership responded to his raising of the 4 days dead Lazarus by plotting Christ's execution. That fundamental stance of disbelief and hardness of heart set them down a path that made them unable to see what was before their eyes.
One can choose to believe or disbelieve the accounts of the Gospels and the traditions of the Church in these matters. I am certainly unable to prove them, and I certainly can understand why subsequent Judaism would reject all of this. I'm just saying that this is how Christianity understood and understands itself with relationship to the faith of the patriarchs and prophets.