What scriptures was Paul referring to in 1st Corinthians 15:3-4?

[74x12]

Again, it's in past tense not future tense, it's not a prophecy.

In verse 2 it is present tense which seems to indicate the prophet Isaiah is seeing a vision of the future and describing what he sees as present which it is in the vision. So keeping the whole prophecy in this context we see it is a future.

Isaiah 53
2 Yea, he comes up as a tender plant before Him, And as a root out of a dry land, He has no form, nor honour, when we observe him, Nor appearance, when we desire him.

Even the creation account of Genesis is in present tense in the Hebrew. So it's more like "in the beginning God creates the heavens and the earth" rather than past tense like many English Bibles use. "in the beginning God created ..."

By disobeying God, very obviously.

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 goes quite in depth with this.

But that ignores the picture of a spotless lamb sacrifice that is the metaphor in Isaiah 53. Here we see he carries their sins literally. So how can he atone for sin if he is the sinner?

I think that verse 8 is the most decisive here because we see that Isaiah says "By the transgression of My people he is plagued,"

So Isaiah is saying that this man is plagued by the sins of the nation of Israel. So that logically means he can't be "my people". It wouldn't make much sense.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

But that ignores the picture of a spotless lamb sacrifice that is the metaphor in Isaiah 53. Here we see he carries their sins literally. So how can he atone for sin if he is the sinner?

I think that verse 8 is the most decisive here because we see that Isaiah says "By the transgression of My people he is plagued,"

You're being anachronistic and interpreting later Christian beliefs onto the passage which is rather straight-forward Isaiah poetry.
It's very straight forward, verse 8 means "by the transgression of the people, the nation hinders itself from YHWH".
Again, very consistent with Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and Leviticus 26:14-46.
I don't see how any kind of crazy and speculative other interpretation is necessary. Heck, not even the NT writers thought it necessary to quote it.
Also, verse 12 is very telling, if the continuity of the Servant as Israel throughout Isaiah wasn't enough. Jesus got no share of the land, he's apparently in heaven sitting on the right hand of the father (hopefully only symbolically because else...)

 

[tigrers2019]

Because You will not abandon Me to the realm of the dead, nor will You let your Faithful One see decay. (Ps. 16:10)

This is the main scripture out of the group that imply a physical resurrection. To understand Paul's 1Cor.15 writing, it is best to see how the ancient Jews understood the scriptural resurrection.
'For 3 days after death the soul hoovers over the body intending to re-enter it. After the 3rd day the body changes due to decomposition and the soul no longer recognizes it and so the soul departs.' (Lev. Rabbah 18:1-2)

So when the Old Testament scriptures speak of the Messiah's resurrection and the body not having decayed, it was implying a raising no later than the 3rd day.

 

[arcanum]

Because You will not abandon Me to the realm of the dead, nor will You let your Faithful One see decay. (Ps. 16:10)

This is the main scripture out of the group that imply a physical resurrection. To understand Paul's 1Cor.15 writing, it is best to see how the ancient Jews understood the scriptural resurrection.
'For 3 days after death the soul hoovers over the body intending to re-enter it. After the 3rd day the body changes due to decomposition and the soul no longer recognizes it and so the soul departs.' (Lev. Rabbah 18:1-2)

So when the Old Testament scriptures speak of the Messiah's resurrection and the body not having decayed, it was implying a raising no later than the 3rd day.

Ok that's a good answer and understanding for a faithful individual in an ancient Jewish context, but you put more emphasis the word faithful by capitalizing the F, as it could only apply to one unique individual. Perhaps it does, maybe the writer of the Psalm was referring to himself, who knows? But whoever wrote this, and to whom it is referring to, it doesn't necessarily mean the future Messiah. That is unless of course, as so often happens, you read into the text what you want it to mean.

 

[sojourner]

From the KJV:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. Since Paul mentioned scriptures, he had to be referring to somewhere in the OT, the question is what scriptures is he referring to that even remotely resembles what he said in the above passage in Corinthians? Since he was addressing a mainly gentile audience, who were probably ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures, do you think he just expected them to take his word for it? Or can you make a strong argument that it is pretty clear what he was referring to, and if so please provide it for consideration. I'm trying to find evidence of Jesus being the messiah in the Hebrew scriptures that isn't so vague, and it appears much of it is when used by apologists to make the case.

You understand that "scriptures" refers to more than just "the Bible."

 

[arcanum]

You understand that "scriptures" refers to more than just "the Bible."

Ok, elaborate, what do you think Paul was referring to outside of what we know as scripture found in "The Bible"? Are hinting at some Midrash or Oral Torah, a writing that didn't make the cut of what found it's way into the Hebrew bible?

 

[sojourner]

Ok, elaborate, what do you think Paul was referring to outside of what we know as scripture found in "The Bible"? Are hinting at some Midrash or Oral Torah, a writing that didn't make the cut of what found it's way into the Hebrew bible?

Any or all of those. Remember, Paul was writing before the Gospels were written.

 

[arcanum]

Any or all of those. Remember, Paul was writing before the Gospels were written.

Well you could have at least made a made a case for your vague answer, that it could be any of these. Yes I'm very aware that Paul's uncontested letters were written before the gospels, which is why when Paul referred to scriptures, he was than likely referring to a book that we find in the Hebrew canon. Yes I know there was no canon in Paul's time, but I'm sure there was those writings that were considered essential, and those that weren't. By that, I mean those books that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as those were considered worthy of being saved for posterity. I really don't think Midrash Oral Torah was what Paul had in mind when he said according to the scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

Well you could have at least made a made a case for your vague answer, that it could be any of these. Yes I'm very aware that Paul's uncontested letters were written before the gospels, which is why when Paul referred to scriptures, he was than likely referring to a book that we find in the Hebrew canon. Yes I know there was no canon in Paul's time, but I'm sure there was those writings that were considered essential, and those that weren't. By that, I mean those books that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as those were considered worthy of being saved for posterity. I really don't think Midrash Oral Torah was what Paul had in mind when he said according to the scriptures.

You also must realize that most things weren't written down. The Gospels were originally most likely not written, but transmitted orally. Yes, it's likely that Paul was referring to some Hebrew text. It's also likely that he was referring to something else that's simply not extant. We don't know, because he provides no clues, and it's useless to speculate.

 

[arcanum]

You also must realize that most things weren't written down. The Gospels were originally most likely not written, but transmitted orally. Yes, it's likely that Paul was referring to some Hebrew text. It's also likely that he was referring to something else that's simply not extant. We don't know, because he provides no clues, and it's useless to speculate.

Well I'd have to disagree with you on it's useless to speculate on this as he is making a major claim, that Jesus death and resurrection had been foretold in the scriptures. I guess for the intellectually lazy for those who those who are who live by blind faith that would work, but for those trying to get at the truth, not so much. Personally I like Paul's theology, especially when he gets a little mystical, but I'm starting to get the feeling that he might not have been always entirely sincere. Perhaps that's not entirely accurate, rather maybe he tried very hard to substantiate his road to Damascus experience and ground it in the Hebrew scriptures, and in that endeavor, he wasn't entirely successful. At least not as clearly as he or we would have liked, but for some I guess he was clear enough.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Well I'd have to disagree with you on it's useless to speculate on this as he is making a major claim, that Jesus death and resurrection had been foretold in the scriptures. I guess for the intellectually lazy for those who those who are who live by blind faith that would work, but for those trying to get at the truth, not so much. Personally I like Paul's theology, especially when he gets a little mystical, but I'm starting to get the feeling that he might not have been always entirely sincere. Perhaps that's not entirely accurate, rather maybe he tried very hard to substantiate his road to Damascus experience and ground it in the Hebrew scriptures, and in that endeavor, he wasn't entirely successful. At least not as clearly as he or we would have liked, but for some I guess he was clear enough.

Interesting point as well. You guys have had a great discussion! What little I know about Paul is his adamant insistence of the reality of his conversion. Yes he would have loved to ground that experience in Hebrew scriptures, but on the other hand, his experience simply took precedent. He did ground his interpretation of his belief in justification by faith in the Hebrew scriptures, (Gen 15:6) as opposed to obeying commandments or the law as a basis for righteousness from God so he could include Gentiles. It's a tough issue to decide what scriptures and what they meant to Paul except the ones he actually used. It's not like there is a lot that is outstanding and clear about this he could draw on, at least not based on what we have now.