Does the book of Isaiah say anything about Jesus of Nazareth?

[SarahM32]

37. No, I am not.

I refer to the book of Isaiah because that’s what is in the Christian Bible, and that's how the world's largest religion sees it.

I have already said several times that I am aware that many scholars conclude that its authorship is three different people, writing at three different times. I personally don’t know if that’s true or not, but I accept that it’s probable because it’s reasonable.

I suppose I should have titled this thread “Does Isaiah Chapter 53 Say Anything About Jesus of Nazareth?” because the article I cited in my OP is titled Isaiah Chapter 53. That’s because it was the erroneous Septuagint Greek translation of that chapter that the Christian gospel writers leaned on so heavily to claim Jesus was born of a “virgin,” etc., and that Chapter 53 is about Jesus even though it is not. That's why the article is important.

As for the dates that the epistles and books of the church canon were written, there are many conflicting opinions by different scholars. You can believe in whichever ones you want. I prefer to believe the more progressive scholars such as those on The Jesus Seminar, and those at religioustolerance.org. For example, http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec.htm is largely in agreement with http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/resurrectionstory.html in saying that Paul was the first to have his writings accepted as “gospel” in 50 CE, Mark in 73 CE, Matthew in 83 CE, Luke and Acts in 90 CE, John in 100 CE, and John’s book of Revelation the last, when he was a very old man in exile on the Isle of Patmos. (And yes, I realize there are different opinions about how many "Johns" there were, but it doesn't matter to me.)

I don’t see much point in further debate between you and me. The points you raise are not relevant to me. And again, I agree to disagree, though I suspect you won’t.
.