You are distorting what Jesus said.
Mark 2:27
The context of saying that the sabbath was made for man is not to say that man gets to decide what divine law is, but merely that the sabbath was made for man's benefit and therefore men should not try to burden other men with stupid rules about how the sabbath must be observed, as though men were serving the concept of the sabbath.
Contextually, that's not what it's talking about. In the NT narrative, Jesus is admonished for allowing his students to pick grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue that the Torah doesn't prohibit picking grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue against the basis for the Law against picking grain on the Sabbath. He makes no argument against the rightfulness of the Law. His argument is that man rules over the Sabbath. The implication being that its within man's power to change the rightful law to suit his needs.
That means that his argument is that he can change G-d's Law.
You are distorting scripture out of context again.
That deals with civil judgement of matters like murder trials, and does not give man the right to declare divine law that men are beholden to observe, such as the pharisees later tried to do.
That's what the previous verse is talking about. When you have a question in judgement, you go to the priest or the judge... and you shall do according to the thing they tell you.
Then the verse creates a new clause, "according to the teaching they teach you and the judgement they tell you, you shall do it..." This clause is independent of the previous one for two reasons: (1) the previous verse already said to listen to the civil judgement they render, this verse isn't adding anything to that. And (2) the verse doesn't start off with the word "and" linking it to the previous statements. Watch:
Deut. 17
v8 "If something alludes you in judgement between blood and blood... AND you shall get up and go to the place that G-d has chosen."
v9 "AND you shall come to the priests, the levites and the judge... AND you shall inquire, AND they will tell you the judgement."
v10 "AND you shall do according to the thing they tell you... AND you shall keep to do all that they tell you."
Those are all the linked statements. Describing from the point where doubt arises to the required path one must take to resolve the doubt. There's nothing more to say and yet:
v11 According to the teaching they teach you and the judgement they tell you, you shall do. Do not turn to the right or the left.
What is this verse adding that was not understood in verse 10 and why wasn't it linked to the previous passage if it's meant to be understood as a continuation of that process?
The answer is of course, that it's coming to teach you that the Judges of the Law have the right to interpret the Law according to their understanding and we are required by Divine mandate to follow that interpretation. It's saying, not only is the previous passage true when it comes to civil matters, but also any Torah Law that the Judges teach as needing to be fulfilled in a certain manner must be fulfilled in that manner.
Jesus never violated anything about Deut 17:11-12
Apparently that's false.
Just because you missed the obvious doesn't mean it isn't there:
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteous Savior.
Nice try. That's the trouble with translations. What it actually says is:
And this is the name that he will be called, 'YHW-H our vindicator'.
Now, that makes sense if you say that the messiah is a man in whose days G-d will perform all sorts of miracles in favor of the Jews. This name represents the remembrance that with the messiah's advent G-d vindicated the Jewish people.
But if this is Jesus, than shouldn't this say "Jesus our vindicator"?
Sorry, there is no indication in this verse that the messiah is G-d.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
I know lots of people with the word G-d in their names. It's quite common even throughout Tanach. "Everlasting Father" is actually a common name in Israel. I know two people who were called "Prince of Peace". Clearly these names are not restricted to G-d.
whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
Yes, the messiah's origins from Bethlehem are very old. If, G-d willing the messiah will come today, his origination from Bethlehem will have gone back almost 3,000 years. Quite ancient.
This is no mere man. No one else but God could be talked about this way.
Alternatively, you're imposing your interpretation on these verses in order to conform with the NT. Without it, you'd have no basis for these interpretations.