"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.
I certainly did not make a judgment as to which side of the coin is heads and which is tails. I merely stated the Jewish position that the "anointed" one, or meshiach, (which is not synonymous with the "savior") is not supposed to be God Himself but a warrior king, anointed by God (like all Jewish kings). This warrior king was to establish peace and harmony in the world, build new Jerusalem, and make all the people of the world believe and worship the God of the Jews.
I must assume that Moses, Jacob, Isaac and so on all believed the same thing, unless pre-Christ Judaism believed in something radically different.
In addition to that, Judiasm never taught that man needs to be saved. It still doesn't. I must assume that Moses and all the Prophets beieved likewise, and considered Israel to be have been saved in Exodus, for which they celebrate a thanksgiving feast known as the Passover. No other salvation is taught.
The term the "World to Come" (known to the Orthodox anc Catholic in the Symbol of Faith, aka The Creed), is used in Judaism to denote the earthly world as established by the human warrior king meshiach when he comes.
Which of the rigtheous OT Jews believed otherwise? If they did not believe otherwise, then Christianity is not a continuation of their faith, but a totally new religion, which is what the Jews claim. The issue is not whether we believe in the same God, but over the role and meaning of the "anointed" one.
Again, I am not making a judgment. I am merely making known both sides of this issue.