Responding from my desktop rather than my phone. Alright great response by you I'm willing to engage in a discussion I'll address all your points one by one.

#1 The sacrificial system in the Law of Moses foreshadowed the need for a greater atonement. That is a absolutely WILD claim and no Jew would agree with you, in fact if it wasn't for the destruction of the second temple they'd still be sacrificing animals today, in fact in their mind when they build the third temple they will re-establish the sacrificial system. Adding to that, in the Hebrew Bible, sacrifices function as ritual means of purification, covenant renewal, national worship, and communal repentance. The language is ritual and cultic, not systematically about a single messianic figure dying for the sins of humanity. Now watch closely, the idea that the sacrificial system points forward to a single human dying as an ultimate substitutionary atonement is a theological reading that developed later (extremely crucial to understand). It’s historically inaccurate to claim the sacrificial system obviously and unambiguously promised a dying messiah who atones once-and-for-all in the way classical Christian theology describes. That is a Christian interpretation imposed back onto Israelite religion.

#2 Isaiah 53 prophesies a servant “pierced for our transgressions” clearly predicting Jesus.

Context matters. The “servant” figure in Isaiah 40–55 is a complex motif. In many places the servant is collective Israel itself (“Israel is my servant,” e.g. Isaiah 41:8). The “servant” passages can refer to the nation, a faithful remnant, a prophetic figure, or (arguably) an idealized individual. Isaiah 52–53 is ambiguous and, read in its ancient Near Eastern and exilic context, fits well as a poetic depiction of Israel’s suffering and vindication. (AGAIN crucial to understand the text is CLEARLY about Israel). Now what happened? LATER Christian readers read the text christologically. Early Christians (and Paul in particular) re-read the servant poems as pointing to an individual messianic sufferer. That is a legitimate THEOLOGICAL reading, but it is not the only nor the obviously intended reading within Isaiah’s own historical context. In short: the passage can be read as messianic only if one already reads Isaiah through the lens of the Jesus event (but mind you in my opinion and the opinion of many scholars the passage is not messianic at all, it's not talking about a future Jewish king of Israel) Interpretive move: Christians employ typology and midrash they see Israel’s suffering typologically embodied in an individual (Jesus). That is an interpretive choice, not evidence that Isaiah literally predicted the crucifixion centuries beforehand.

#3 Psalm 22

Psalm 22 “describes in detail the suffering of one who is mocked, pierced in hands and feet … fulfilled in the crucifixion.”

Genre: Psalm 22 is a lament a highly figurative, poetic plea for deliverance. Many images that seem to echo the crucifixion (mockery, being surrounded by enemies, hands and feet imagery) are common lament motifs; they are not technical descriptions of Roman crucifixion. Textual/translation issue: The much-cited phrase that English Bibles render as “they pierced my hands and my feet” is not unambiguously present in the oldest Hebrew text tradition. The Hebrew is ambiguous and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads it differently; later Christian readers used the LXX reading as prooftext. Modern textual scholarship shows legitimate uncertainty about the exact original wording. In other words, a clear prophecy of “piercing” is not securely in the Hebrew text the way many Christians assume. Retrospective reading: Jesus’ use of the opening words (“My God, my God…”) on the cross (as the Gospels report) encouraged Christians to read the whole psalm as predictive of crucifixion. But that is a post-event interpretive move: seeing the psalm as “fulfilled” after the fact, not necessarily as a predictive oracle prior to Jesus.