Depends who you ask, really. Plenty of Jews would say he was nothing more than a pharasaic rabbi expressing commonly held views of the day, which were exaggerated and taken out of context by the gospellers.

No, he was not a heretic, he was less than a prophet but not a heretic, only the most extreme Jews think so, in Islam Jesus was a prohpet of God, the same as my God I believe

From Wikipedia:
Heresy is proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon. It is sometimes confused with apostasy which is disaffiliation from orthodoxy and blasphemy which is defamation of orthodox opinion.

He didn't do that?

At the time, there were several different, opposing streams of Judaism. Jesus opposed the Sadducee stream (which was also the ruling class and in charge of the temple) and his beliefs tend to be more in the direction of the Pharisee stream. Sadducees died out in the century after Jesus lived and contemporary Judaism is entirely decended from the Pharisees. Thus, not as much of a conflict as you'd think.

Note: The preceding paragraph would be considered controversial to many Christians, who blame the Pharisees for killing Jesus'. Actually, if anyone is responsible for his death it would be either the Romans or the Priestly Caste, who were all Sadducees. The whole anti-Pharisee thing is political; when the gospels were being written, the Judeo-Christians experienced vilification and discrimination from the Pharisees so it was convenient for them to choose a contemporary scapegoat.

Also, Jesus never intended to establish a new religion; it was his followers who did that.

THIIIIIIIIIIS.