Judaism does not feel that Jesus fulfilled any part of the role of the Jewish Messiah. It is Christianity and Islam that assert that he did.
If you mean the Jewish equivalent of Jesus Christ, there is none. If you are referring to the Christian term "the Jewish Jesus", i.e. referring to the character in a more historical or Jewish-like sense, then you should investigate "Messianic Judaism" and similar Christian movements which purport to provide this information. However, their views are often conflicting.
The Talmud is the discussion and elaboration on what is in the Torah. It is ancient Jewish scholars trying to make sense of the Torah and it's laws in order to fulfill them.
The question as written makes no sense; Israelites had formed a civilization and then argued that they would have a king in the future who would be responsible for earth-shattering actions, who would be termed the "Messiah". So no Messiah is the ancestor of the Israelites, but the Messiah will be the descendant of the Israelites.Conversely, Biblical tradition holds that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel are the ancestors of all Israelites. However, these Patriarchs are not considered Messiahs.
No, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination. They share a common root however because the Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as their Savior and Jesus was born on earth as a Jew. Both Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses were bitterly persecuted during the 2nd World War under Hitler's regime. The Jews because of their ethnicity and the Jehovah's Witnesses because they refused to cooperate with the Nazis.
The promise of the Messiah was repeated from generation to generation to keep hope alive among believers, to maintain a sense of anticipation for the coming Savior, and to fulfill the prophecies laid out in scripture. This repetition served as a reminder of God's faithfulness and His plan for salvation.
The Jewish Priests were opposed to the reforms that Jesus wished to make and condemned his activities on several occasions, so in that sense, yes, they were a threat to Jesus' activities. However, Jewish authorities never attempted or wished to attempt to stop Peter and Paul's preaching of the gospel to non-Jews nor did they oppose the writing of the Gospels.
No, it does not. The Koran contains several passages about Jesus, and it teaches that Jesus was a prophet. The Christian concept of messiah is not contained in the Koran and is not taught in Islam. The Koran also teaches that Muhammad is the greatest prophet, but not the messiah in the Christian sense.
Look at the writings attributed to Josephus. Doesn't it seem odd that he declares Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, and yet seems so calm about the whole thing? In all of his writings, Jesus, the Messiah, gets only a paragraph? Doesn't make sense. This is obviously not the answer your teacher wants, but the reality is, according to every modern scholar, that Josephus wrote nothing at all about Jesus. The part that is attributed to Josephus is a clumsy forgery, probably inserted hundreds of years after Josephus' death.
In some religious contexts, "messiah" refers to a specific figure chosen to deliver a message or fulfill a prophecy. However, the term "messenger" is more general and can refer to anyone who carries or delivers a message. So while a messiah can be considered a type of messenger, the two terms are not always interchangeable.
The Jews did not (and do not) verbally or actively reject Jesus. They just do not (and did not) accept him as more than a regular human being. In this sense, of not venerating him, it is a continuing thing, not a one-time "event." See also:Does Judaism say anything about Jesus?
That depends on what you consider Christianity to be. If we are very picky, what Jesus intended to do and succeeded in doing was to complete the Jewish faith (which was waiting for the messiah). In that sense he doesn't found a new religion so much as give plenitude to an existing one. This radically new perception, however, coupled with the fact that not every Jew converted makes it a general assumption that he founded (and intended to found) an altogether new religion and it would be entirely appropriate to say so.