Talk:Isaiah

message: The Prophets Hosea and Isaiah were (near) contemporaries.  Moreover, the High Priest at this time was Hoshaiah.  (See Wikipedia's List of the High Priests of Israel entry.)  Could Hoshaiah the High Priest, Hosea the Prophet, and Isaiah the Prophet all have been the same person???
Hi All, I have just made some major additions to this page of Isaiah and have preserved some original material as well. Comments are welcome! - Nathan Hill
This page seems to overlap badly with Book of Isaiah. I think the idea of this page was to be mainly about the prophet, not about the book.
Our intentions were to talk about both the book and the prophet. Perhaps this page would be better incorporated into "book or Isaiah" and this page reverted to its previous content? -Nathan Hill
I don't think "Christianity" regards Isaiah as a Saint.  Prophet yes, saint no.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.139.204 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, Christianity regards anyone who has been redeemed to be a saint, as it comes from Latin "sanctus" meaning holy.  Anyone who is redeemed by Christ's gift of salvation, past or present, is a saint.  Those who are officially proclaimed saints, as by the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Churches are those who they believed have been "proven" to be true believers.  Thus, Isaiah can be said to be a saint.  Anyone not falling into this category, but who may be a saint is regarded as an unknown saint, whose feast day would then be celebrated on November 1, "All Saints Day." Danwaggoner (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: There are no messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53. The suffering servant is a personification of the people of Israel. Sources:
* Professor Bart D. Ehrman, The Historical Jesus. Part I. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 36. 
*  Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Older threads

message: In reference to Isaiah's reference to the Messiah (otherwise known as Jesus Christ), I have only scratched the surface to find Isaiah 9:1 - 7; Isaiah 7:13 - 14; and Isaiah 52:13 - 53 (whole chapter). These are simply a few of the overt prophecies of the Christ; their are many more subtle references.
I'm unsure of the qualifications needed to edit/comment, so I'll leave it there. I'm no professor; just a Minister. Hope this at least gets someone on the track.
As for Jews being offended by these references, I fail to see how this could be. Surely the Jewish understanding of these references would be quite plausible... hence the debate about whether or not they are reference to Christ Himself or someone else entirely.
144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah. 

message: Moved from Fayenatic_london talk page
I'm sure your intentions for your recent edits of Isaiah were good but...
*The Hebrew word for Isaiah is already included within the article
*The link is too general for the article.
WikiJonathanpeter 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi WJP, in that case I suggest you go further and delete the whole external link to the Tanakh Profiles site.  Two or three of us who cannot read Hebrew agreed to let Rambamfan's edits remain, on condition that the transliteration link should be added to help non-Hebrew-readers work out the names.  OK? - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I see - done.  Thanks.  WikiJonathanpeter 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaiah 

message: The opening paragraph says that the prophet Isaiah is "commonly considered" to be the author of the entire book.  In fact, he is not so considered by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.
Shouldn't this be changed? Jhobson1 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a good source, change the page, cite the source. Easy-peasy. --130.243.208.12 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose that regular Christians who are not Biblical scholars are pretty "common"... I'll change it to "traditionally".  Hopefully there's no controversy about that. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commonly considered" 

message: I see that virtually the entire "Critical Scholarship" section was removed on September 19th in an unexplained deletion by an anonymous user with a track record of vandalism (see here for another example of this user's "contribution").  I see no reason to suppose that this edit was made in good faith, and what's left has since been tagged as "confusing", so I'm restoring the section. --Robert Stevens 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section should be removed and put into the article Book of Isaiah. That is the place to discuss "critical scholarship" - this article should be about the person, not the book.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Deleted it - the article Book of Isaiah more than covers this topic.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Critical Scholarship" 

message: This article needs a serious haircut.  The request for citations is almost a year old.  I think it's time to start trimming out the unreferenced speculations.  All in favor?  Opposed?--Nowa (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Haircut

message: This section adds nothing whatsoever to the article.  Most of it appears to be an attempt by Mormons to engage in self-promotion.  For this reason I propose deletion. Darkman101 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the content of that section isn't really focused on Isaiah at all. There should be maybe one sentence in this article noting that Isaiah is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but related details should either go in Book of Mormon or in related subarticles. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: diff for posterity, in case anyone wants to put this content somewhere more appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" 

message: It currently says "The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title, "Mrs. Prophet" as it were, is likely." and cites Coogan's textbook. I'm reading Coogan right now, and I found the exact sentence, except that Coogan actually says "less likely." I'm not by any means an expert, however, so I'm hesitant to rework a section on the likelihood of different theories. Sir Akroy (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophetess Theories 

message: More research should be cited from The Works of Josephus.  Isaiah, the Prophet is mentioned in Josephus in Antiq. 9.13.3; 10.1.3; 10.2.1, 2; his eulogium, 10.2.2; his prophecy concerning the Assyrians 10.14.1ff; concerning Cyprus 210 years before his reign 11.1.2; the same read by Cyrus, ibid.; his prophcy concerning the temple of Onias, War. 7.10.3 The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston, A.M., Hendricson Publishers, 1987. easeltineEaseltine (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Works of Josephus 

message: I agree with this assessment, the section is a mess, but I don't have time to fix it. I can however provide several references to start with for someone who wants to take this on. There's the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for Isaiah here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah; the Catholic Encyclopedia entry here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm (with the Latin spelling "Isaias"; Britannica Online here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295133/Isaiah; the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Isaiah.html.
YoMenashe (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Biography section is flagged: "This section improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources" 

message: "The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title is likely"
And WHY is that, pray tell?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.113.41 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess because there is nowhere any mention of her prophesying, and it would be quite a coincidence if Isaiah happened to marry a prophetess, considering that they are quite rare in the Bible. Anyway, what matters is that the statement is properly sourced. This is not the opinion of Wikipedia editors, but of biblical scholars. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the paragraph in question? - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophetess for sure, perhaps his epiteth was a honorary title???? 

message: Shouldn't we have an article on this name? There's currently a few abysmally minimal stubs/disambig pages—Isaias (given name), Izaiaš—that would probably do better to be merged into such a page. We should probably also make note of people named Yeshaya(h(u)) somewhere. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D935:CCD3:910B:1262 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The name Isaiah

message: See https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/prophet-isaiah-jerusalem-seal-archaeology-bible/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a reliable source. Seriously, they've gone downhill over the years and promotional.  Use her article.
 There's also some criticism of the claim at Eilat Mazar. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulla 

message: I have reverted at . It is original research: the source does not even mention Sennacherib, so it does not verify the claim made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war about the bulla 

message: What do we think about the idea of writing something about the supposed Isaiah seal in the article?
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2018/february/isaiah-seal-more-evidence-of-biblical-narrative  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "supposed". It's described as "maybe", by an archaeologist who, in her article in Wikipedia is described as using a religious rather than a scientific approach to archaeology. In her own words - "I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other". So we have a very soft claim from a self-admitted, biased source. Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Isaiah seal

message: Hello everyone I recently added a small line that shows that Isaiah existed around 700 years before Jesus Christ under the Christianity section. I think we can also focus more on Isaiah's relation/context historically to help people get a better understanding of his place in history.
If my edit is incorrect or if you find a more accurate year please do change it. I am a new editor and I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia.
Best Wishes.
Sabaybayin (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaiah in Context 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Yeshayahu. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Yeshayahu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hildeoc (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yeshayahu" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: When I was researching about prophets of Judaism, I saw that the same image (Russian icon of the Prophet Ezekiel holding a scroll with his prophecy and pointing to the "closed gate" (18th century, Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Russia)) is placed on both the pages for Ezekiel and Isaiah.
I am new in editing Wikipedia pages. So instead of correcting I decided to open a talk about this confusing information.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isaiah.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ezekiel-icon.jpg Fatih Keçelioğlu (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Icon: Ezekiel or Isaiah?