Dio: The law said that people are to honor their parents. Jesus denied his own mother as well as his brothers and sisters. And Joseph was a no-show after being hoodwinked into marrying Mary. But Joseph does get a cameo appearance, unlike Moses's daddy.
***

Joseph was just Matthew’s prop for getting Jesus to be a descendant of David. And Amram gets some mention in Exodus and Numbers.

The part in Mark 3, about ‘who is my mother, who are my brothers’ is not exactly denying is mother. It is part of a theme throughout the Synoptic Gospels that to be a literal walking down the dirt road with Jesus, one had to give up everything in one’s former life. Total commitment with no looking back was needed. If Jesus stayed home with his mother as she apparently wanted, the story would have been a lot shorter. : -)

Dio: Jesus said that you should give to those who ask but he never gave anything to anyone.
***

Jesus did not have anything to give. He and his roadies had given up everything they had. Can you give any instance of Jesus being asked to give something that he had and refusing?

Dio: The law said that you are not to have any Gods before Yahweh yet Jesus claimed to be above Yahweh.
***

In John, Jesus is represented as being simultaneously equivalent to God the Father and less than the Father. This is exactly the same ambiguity as is found in Philo’s Logos concept, which John is clearly using. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is always subordinate to the Father. If you think Jesus said he was above Yahweh, please provide book, chapter, verse and text. No double talk please, just a for real citation.

Dio: Jesus said that if people don't kiss his butt that he will toss them into the fire. So he's claiming a lot of power by that statement as either the messiah, God, or the son of God.
***

Please cite chapter and verse in the Gospels where Jesus said to kiss his butt. What we do see in the Gospels is Jesus saying to act morally. Often this is expressed as quotes from the Torah (Ex: Matthew 19:16-19) or as principles of charity derived from the Torah (Ex: Matthew 25:31-46).

Dio: According to the Jewish Babylonian Talmud the Jews claim that they, collectively, are the messiah. So either way, whether Jesus or the Jews are the messiah neither one will do anything for the Gentiles.
***

Your claim about the Babylonian Talmud is utterly wrong. If you want to argue the point, cite relevant sections. Here is the Talmud online.
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud

Regardless, in the concept of the messianic age, the Messiah will rule the world in peace and there will be plenty for everyone. It is primarily about the Jewish people, but everyone who is righteous will have a share in HaOlam HaBa . This includes gentiles that follow the Noahide Laws.

Dio: And don't forget 5:17-18 (CEB) = "17 “Don’t even begin to think that I have come to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I haven’t come to do away with them but to fulfill them. 18 I say to you very seriously that as long as heaven and earth exist, neither the smallest letter nor even the smallest stroke of a pen will be erased from the Law until everything there becomes a reality."

Therefore every action that he did in violation of the Law made him a hypocrite.
***

A point that Christians try really had to get away from is that Matthew was a Jewish Christian who held that Jewish Law was here to stay, as opposed to Paul who said it was obsolete and should be abandoned. In this passage, Matthew has Jesus oppose Pauline Christianity. (More to it that, but I do not want to get too far off topic.

It was only by the strict interpretation of the rule-obsessive Shammai Pharisees that Jesus was perceived to break the Law. His disciples were hungry and they pulled off some heads of grain to eat. According to rabbinical interpretation reaping is work. Whether this really counts as reaping is the question. To the Shammai Pharisees, virtually everything would be work. But keep in mind that Jesus did not believe in the oral law, only the written Torah. Justification that plucking heads of grain because you are hungry is not reaping might be found in Deuteronomy 23:25

“If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.”

Using a sickle would be reaping. Plucking some grain and eating it would only be reaping to control freaks like the Shammai Pharisees.

What we really have here is Jesus being opposed to people being strangled with tons of regulations that are not in the written Torah. The only violation was in the minds of the anal retentive Shammai Pharisees, not as Jesus saw the Law.

The opposition of the Pharisees to healing on the Sabbath is very interesting. Was there really a rule that one could not heal on the Sabbath? How common was miraculous healing anyway? In the stories as presented, they are opposed to this. This strikes me as caricature, presenting the Pharisees as so wrapped up in a rule-obsessive mindset that they witness a miracle and only care about it being ‘work’.