A couple of points:

(1) Religiously, nothing that Jesus is reported in the gospels to have said—as opposed to what Christians may assert that he meant—would have disqualified him from being a (religious) Jew [whether or not “orthodox” is another question, but one with little immediate historical context: were Hanina ben Dosa or Choni the Circle Drawer “orthodox”? Later (18th century) , was the Baal Shem Tov? Is Rabbi Lawrence Kushner (Reform)? Is Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi (Reconstructionist, I think; though once a Lubatvitcher Hasid)].

—The very estimable Rabbi Jacob Neusner ( Conservative) would disagree, in that—on his view—“Rabbi” Yeshua pointed away from Torah toward: himself. The argument could be made, however (and Neusner invites argument) that Yeshua was “contexting” Torah in light of the existential “I-am.”

(2) “Son of man”—and even “son of God”—were Jewish euphemisms extant at the time. [Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew.] Neither one necessarily held the supernatural freight that gentile (Hellenistic) concepts might have.

—Note Jesus’ response in John 10:34-36 (quoting Psalm 82:6) to charges of blasphemy for claiming to be God’s “son”.

(3) Jesus was from Galilee. That is not unimportant. The word “Jews” in the NT can sometimes be taken to mean residents of Judea (the southern kingdom), especially, I think, in the Gospel of John.

(4) “Christ” is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew word moshiach—which, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is anyone anointed (physically or metaphorically) as an agent of God’s purpose (e.g., Saul, David, King Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1).

From my point of view: Jesus was a Jew; he thought of himself as a Jew; whatever he thought about the divine/human natures of the existential “I-am”, he spoke of it within a Jewish context. He may have been arguing for a different Judaism (proto-Hasidic?) than the other “Judaisms” (Neusner’s term) extant at the time.

Question for religionists: who is not a manifestation (incarnation) of the divine “I-am”—whether one views the “divine” ground as “supernatural” or not (I am in the “not” group).

___________________________________

Note: I’ve cut a lot of corners here; Scriabin will no doubt call me on them. 🙂

Originally posted by Badwater
It is not parsing; there is a clear distinction between a belief in the Trinity or in a Triune God. Since both theologies came about after the death of Jesus, your question posing whether Jesus believed in a Trinity strikes me as being illogical.

Originally posted by Nemesio
While there are many, many sects of Judaism, the one thing they agree on is that God is
the One God, One Person, Singularly Expressed. They do not -- cannot -- believe in a Triune
God (or Trinity or however you want to express it) because this is the one tenet of their faith
and tradition that is not subject to debate.

Also, the followin ...[text shortened]... d, it would be like claiming to be a Christian and
disbelieving that Jesus existed.

Nemesio