The facts have been presented for you to either refute or acknowledge.You have no facts to support that.
The first claim is that it is an error to translate Is 53:3 as "He was wounded FOR our transgression" in order to falsely claim vicarious atonement - with the accurate translation being "He (Israel) was wounded BECAUSE OF our (the nations) transgression.
The 2nd claim is that it is an error to translate 53:8 as "For the transgression of my people HE WAS stricken", as the accurate translation is "...THEY WERE stricken..."
Finally, a very good question is asked regarding why Peter would rebuke Jesus for saying he was going to Jerusalem to be killed and resurrected after 3 days - "If, indeed he is the promised messiah, then Peter, no doubt familiar with Isaiah 53, should have had no problem. Yet, since neither he, nor any other apostle of Jesus knew of any strange concept of Messiah suffering, dying, and being resurrected, they did not see Isaiah 53 as being a definitive passage containing information defining the “suffering servant” and vicarious atonement role of Messiah.
Which of these claims do you feel able to refute? Or is your claim of 'no facts' being presented simply your retreat?