The issue I see with these objections is that they sort of beg the question. If Jesus is not who He is claimed to be, then of course these objections work. If He is who He is claimed to be, then none of them work. So they only work if you already accept the conclusion.
But some of them are factually wrong. The virgin birth is found in the LXX. Atonement by blood is just a combination of temple sacrifice with the concept of the atoning tzaddik. The sort of hermeneutics found in the NT are attested to in second-temple Judaism, namely the Qumran and Alexandrian communities, and even the pharisaic communities. And there is no reason a divine Messiah contradicts monotheism (strict monotheism seems like a contradiction in terms.).
Ultimately, these are not really the right questions. Of course you can make almost any religion internally coherent based on its own logical structures. Like, of course if you begin with certain premises like “God cannot become man”, then you can build a coherent faith around that. But it is equally coherent to say that God can become man if He chooses. So the question is what actually is the case? Did God actually become man? And I think you will find that the Catholic answer is correct here.
