We know very little about what the Essenes actually believed. There are only a view paragraphs about them in the historical sources that actually mention them. It is not a settled matter within the community of scholars who are actually working with the Dead Sea Scrolls that they were Essenes. Their laws reflect, exactly, the laws of the Saducees recorded in the Talmud, leading many scholars to conclude that they were a group of Saducees who left the larger group when it began to become corrupt.
The Chasidic beliefs I was sharing do not in any way try to remake a historical figure into a new ideal as the New Age movement does with Jesus. They are using age old techniques like the Yogis in India and have developed their ideas have developed over a long period of time, like the Yogis in India, and they base their beliefs on a theology that has survived time and several attempts to eradicate it. Even the Kriya groups in India differ quite a lot from the American schools of Kriya Yoga, SRF being one of the more 'American'. It was not the Chasidic teachings that I was comparing the New Age conceptions of Jesus to. They make no comments about Jesus.
I guess I separate my personal beliefs from discussion about historical evidence and analyses of traditional religious beliefs. I dissagree with both the traditional Christian and the traditional Jewish point of view, but I've found that many of the Chasidic teachings are very similar to Yoganandas teachings and I've started to adapt them to what I think is a more universal perspective. That's why I was mentioning them.
I can assure you that your "Christian" beliefs about Jesus are far different from the average Christian and are more Hindu influenced than anything. There is nothing wrong with that, but when I was saying the word "Christian" I was referring to what is normally considered Christian, not the New Age version of Christianity, which has a variety of influences in it that are coming out of the modern "marketplace" of ideas, rather than the traditional Christian view - which also varies from group to group.
To give you an example of just how "Jewish" the original Christians were, in James church, if a non-Jew wanted to become a Christian, he or she had to convert to Judaism first, and then become a Christian. Paul changed this. It's quite clear in his letters.
My take on the whole Jesus issue is that he works quite well as an Ishta Devata, and I would never tell anyone that he does not and that they should abandon their belief in him.
When it comes to whether Jesus behaved and taught "like a Jew", I will argue that one. I'm very familiar with the historical evidence from the time period, though there is precious little about him, except what is recorded in the New Testament and the Gnostic scriptures, none of which shows that he was acting radically non-Jewish - there being several shades of what it meant to be a Jew at that time. The Pharisees only gained ascendency after the Temple was destroyed. All of the groups at that time were arguing with each other, much like the many types of Judaism today. They happened to be the ones who managed to survive the best, and that was because there were certain Rabbis who managed to form schools that flourished instead of dying out. The title "Rabbi" comes from the root R-V which mean "great". Only the Pharisees were using it in that time period. The Aramaic is Rav. It's come to mean something like 'teacher' but the word for teacher is actually from the root M-R-H. Teachers are called moreh, or morah. There is an ordination called 'smichah', which was an institution put into place by the Pharisees, not the other groups, which had there own systems, no doubt.
