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

[arcanum]

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.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Not sure, but maybe Isaiah 53 mixed with some other scriptures, even though Im pretty sure that Isaiah 53 is about Jerusalem in the shape of a person... but might be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

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.

john Gill

how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly ( Genesis 3:15 ) ( Psalms 22:1-31 ) ( Isaiah 53:1-12 ) ( Daniel 9:24-27 ) which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered.

and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
that he should rise again from the dead was very plainly hinted or expressed in several prophecies which speak of the rising of his dead body, of its not being left in the grave so long as to see corruption; and which therefore could not be in it more than three days; and of his lifting up his head after he had drank of the brook by the way; of his ascension to heaven, and session at the right hand of God, which suppose his resurrection, ( Isaiah 26:19 ) ( Psalms 16:10 ) ( Psalms 68:18 ) ( Psalms 110:1 Psalms 110:7 ) . And that he should rise again the third day, is not only suggested in ( Hosea 6:2 ) but was prefigured by the deliverance of Isaac on the third day after Abraham had given him up for dead, from whence he received him, in a figure of Christ's resurrection; and by Jonah's deliverance out of the whale's belly, after he had been in it three days. The Jews take a particular notice of the third day as remarkable for many things they observe F5, as



``of the third day Abraham lift up his eyes, ( Genesis 22:4 ) of the third day of the tribes, ( Genesis 42:18 ) of the third day of the spies, ( Joshua 2:16 ) of the third day of the giving of the law, ( Exodus 19:16 ) of the third day of Jonah, ( Jonah 1:17 ) of the third day of them that came out of the captivity, ( Ezra 8:15 ) of the third day of the resurrection of the dead, as it is written, ( Hosea 6:2 ) "after two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight".''


From which passage, it is clear, that they under stood the prophecy in Hosea of the resurrection of the dead; and it is observable, that among the remarkable third days they take notice of, are the two instances of Isaac's and Jonah's deliverances, which were Scripture types of Christ's resurrection. From which observations they establish this as a maxim F6, that
``God does not leave the righteous in distress more than three days.''

That Christ did rise again from the dead, in pursuance of those prophecies and types, the apostle afterwards proves by an induction of particular instances of persons who were eyewitnesses of it.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Isn't the standard view that "according to the scriptures" in the Nicene Creed relates to Psalm 16:10?

Presumably this is what St Paul also had in mind.

 

[arcanum]

john Gill

how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly ( Genesis 3:15 ) ( Psalms 22:1-31 ) ( Isaiah 53:1-12 ) ( Daniel 9:24-27 ) which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered.

and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
that he should rise again from the dead was very plainly hinted or expressed in several prophecies which speak of the rising of his dead body, of its not being left in the grave so long as to see corruption; and which therefore could not be in it more than three days; and of his lifting up his head after he had drank of the brook by the way; of his ascension to heaven, and session at the right hand of God, which suppose his resurrection, ( Isaiah 26:19 ) ( Psalms 16:10 ) ( Psalms 68:18 ) ( Psalms 110:1 Psalms 110:7 ) . And that he should rise again the third day, is not only suggested in ( Hosea 6:2 ) but was prefigured by the deliverance of Isaac on the third day after Abraham had given him up for dead, from whence he received him, in a figure of Christ's resurrection; and by Jonah's deliverance out of the whale's belly, after he had been in it three days. The Jews take a particular notice of the third day as remarkable for many things they observe F5, as



``of the third day Abraham lift up his eyes, ( Genesis 22:4 ) of the third day of the tribes, ( Genesis 42:18 ) of the third day of the spies, ( Joshua 2:16 ) of the third day of the giving of the law, ( Exodus 19:16 ) of the third day of Jonah, ( Jonah 1:17 ) of the third day of them that came out of the captivity, ( Ezra 8:15 ) of the third day of the resurrection of the dead, as it is written, ( Hosea 6:2 ) "after two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight".''


From which passage, it is clear, that they under stood the prophecy in Hosea of the resurrection of the dead; and it is observable, that among the remarkable third days they take notice of, are the two instances of Isaac's and Jonah's deliverances, which were Scripture types of Christ's resurrection. From which observations they establish this as a maxim F6, that
``God does not leave the righteous in distress more than three days.''

That Christ did rise again from the dead, in pursuance of those prophecies and types, the apostle afterwards proves by an induction of particular instances of persons who were eyewitnesses of it.

Thanks for your reply, I'll ponder what you said in your post, a lotto digest.

 

[arcanum]

Isn't the standard view that "according to the scriptures" in the Nicene Creed relates to Psalm 16:10?

Presumably this is what St Paul also had in mind.

I've heard this before, but I don't think it's be clear at all that this verse is talking about a future messiah, couldn't it have been King David himself hoping he had somehow gained eternal life? I've heard Rabbi's dismiss this connection as a future messiah in debates with Christians as well. As for myself I don't find it at all convincing, it's too bad Paul didn't make any citations.

 

[exchemist]

I've heard this before, but I don't think it's be clear at all that this verse is talking about a future messiah, couldn't it have been King David himself hoping he had somehow gained eternal life? I've heard Rabbi's dismiss this connection as a future messiah in debates with Christians as well. As for myself I don't find it at all convincing, it's too bad Paul didn't make any citations.

Sure, there's a lot of selective interpretation in all these things. But I'm pretty sure this is what standard Christian theology thinks is referred to. Even Handel (or rather Jennens, his librettist) quotes this psalm verse in Messiah:

 

[74x12]

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.

He doesn't have to be referring to the OT; because one of the gospels could have already been written and been in circulation at that time. However, that doesn't mean those facts aren't in the OT. They are, but it's just not easy to see without serious consideration and someone showing you where it's at.

 

[74x12]

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.

The prophecies of Jesus death and resurrection are hidden and vague on purpose because God needed Satan to actually go through with it. If you put yourself in Satan's shoes then you'll see that he would never kill Jesus if he knew beforehand that Jesus would rise from the dead and destroy his(satan's) power in the process. Since we know that Satan does study the scriptures; it becomes clear that God had to hide the fact that Jesus would die and rise from the dead.

Basically, Satan had to take the bait and be convinced he was winning a victory somehow when he had Jesus killed. We know that according to the scriptures it was Satan who inspired people to kill Jesus because:

John 14:30, Jesus claimed the prince of this world(satan) was coming right before He died.
Luke 22:3 It was Satan who entered Judas to inspire him to betray Jesus.
Luke 23:34, Jesus says the people don't really know what they're doing. Which implies some kind of supernatural evil is at work moving them to do it.
1 Corinthians 2:8, it was the "princes of this world" who put Jesus to death because they did not know He would rise from the dead and therefore take all power in heaven and earth.

Who are the princes of this world? Clearly, from Daniel 10:20 we know that the "princes of this world" are non-human demonic forces set up as regional or national princes in satan's kingdom.

Which is what Paul is talking about here:
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

and here:
Colossians 2:11-15
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

 

[Deeje]

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.

When Christ walked the earth as God’s anointed, the Jews were expecting their Messiah at that time because of the prophesy in Daniel 9:24-26....

“There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress. And after the 62 weeks, Mes·siʹah will be cut off, with nothing for himself”.

That prophesy pointed to 29 CE....the year Christ was baptized. It was prophesied that Messiah would be "cut off"...and he was....executed on trumped up charges by those who should have accepted him.....

Isaiah 53:8; 12....
“Because of restraint and judgment he was taken away;
And who will concern himself with the details of his generation?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
Because of the transgression of my people he received the stroke.”. . . . .

“For that reason I will assign him a portion among the many,
And he will apportion the spoil with the mighty,
Because he poured out his life even to death
And was counted among the transgressors;
He carried the sin of many people,
And he interceded for the transgressors.”

Gentiles were received into the Christian congregation but only after they had taken in the necessary knowledge about the Christ and the reason for his mission and his death. Only then were they baptized as Christians. Jews already had this knowledge, but those who followed Christ had to ignore their religious leaders who rejected him as that promised seed.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Not sure, but maybe Isaiah 53 mixed with some other scriptures, even though Im pretty sure that Isaiah 53 is about Jerusalem in the shape of a person... but might be wrong.

Israel actually, as all the surrounding chapters show with the "servant" which is a motif in that book.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

Depending on the phrasing of the actual greek it could mean two things;

"according to the scriptures" as in, he did things according to them, not breaking their laws.

It wouldn't be referring to Matthew Mark Luke or John yet because they were written and compiled from oral tradition much later.

 

[74x12]

Israel actually, as all the surrounding chapters show with the "servant" which is a motif in that book.

Isaiah speaks for the whole nation of Israel when he says:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

So how does the nation of Israel do this for the nation of Israel? It doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that Jesus is the head of Israel.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Isaiah speaks for the whole nation of Israel when he says:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

So how does the nation of Israel do this for the nation of Israel? It doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that Jesus is the head of Israel.

Nope, as I said, it is explained by surrounding chapters. Stop taking small parts out of context to fit your agenda:

He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing at all. Yet what is due me is in YHWH’s hand, and my reward is with my God.”
(Isaiah 49:3-4)

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”
(Isaiah 42:1-4)

Who among you fears YHWH and obeys the word of his servant? Let the one who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of YHWH and rely on their God.
(Isaiah 50:10)

It is one of many of the 'servant songs', as quoted here, nothing mysterious nor even prophetic, it's literally about the victory of the Israelites out of their difficult time in Babylonian captivity - nothing more or less.

an inheritance to his servant Israel, His love endures forever.
(Psalm 136:22)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Perhaps cross reference by:
Psalms 22:5; Isaiah 53:8-9,12; Daniel 9:26; 1 Peter 2:24; Matthew 27:59-60; Matthew 28:7; John 1:17; Luke 24:46; Psalms 16:10

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Isaiah speaks for the whole nation of Israel when he says:
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
So how does the nation of Israel do this for the nation of Israel? It doesn't make sense.
What does make sense is that Jesus is the head of Israel.

Remember: that since Pentecost the whole nation of Israel is No longer fleshly nor national Israel, but ' now spiritual Israel ' ( the Christian congregation )
Jesus being the Head of spiritual Israel the Christian congregation. Jerusalem 'above' is now the seat of government - Galatians 4:26.
A spiritual nation without borders or boundaries and Not found located on any map - 1 Peter 2:9,5

 

[74x12]

Nope, as I said, it is explained by surrounding chapters. Stop taking small parts out of context to fit your agenda:

He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing at all. Yet what is due me is in YHWH’s hand, and my reward is with my God.”
(Isaiah 49:3-4)

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”
(Isaiah 42:1-4)

Who among you fears YHWH and obeys the word of his servant? Let the one who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of YHWH and rely on their God.
(Isaiah 50:10)

It is one of many of the 'servant songs', as quoted here, nothing mysterious nor even prophetic, it's literally about the victory of the Israelites out of their difficult time in Babylonian captivity - nothing more or less.

an inheritance to his servant Israel, His love endures forever.
(Psalm 136:22)

I notice that you don't explain the contradiction I brought up. How does Israel carry his own sorrows etc? It makes no sense. This one spoken of in Isaiah 53 clearly is one who dies (portrayed as a sacrificial lamb) for the nation of Israel. So how is Israel dying for Israel's own sins? Are they pure enough to be their own sacrifice? Not really because they sinned so they can't be pure. Therefore they need a lamb that is "without blemish and spotless" as Moses taught. So who is this man that is like this?

Jesus is Israel. So we know for example that Isaiah 49:3-4 is also about Jesus as is Isaiah 42:1-4 and Isaiah 50:10. Jesus is the eternal Israel for all those who really understand Isaiah. Because Jesus is the resurrection; not Jacob. Jacob was named Israel but he died and they carried his body out of Egypt to bury in Canaan. Now then ... he remains dead until the resurrection comes. (Daniel 12:13) The resurrection is new life from the dead. Therefore, all those resurrected are born to Jesus Christ because He is the "firstborn from the dead". So what that means is that all those who will live forever will be born after Jesus. Born into His body. So Jesus is the true Israel that lives forever. That's what you're not understanding.

As for the claim it's about Israel leaving Babylon, that is partially true in a sense about much of later Isaiah; but it has spiritual implications that extend to today. But another thing to remember as that this was not all one work. It's compiled together.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I notice that you don't explain the contradiction I brought up. How does Israel carry his own sorrows etc? It makes no sense. This one spoken of in Isaiah 53 clearly is one who dies (portrayed as a sacrificial lamb) for the nation of Israel. So how is Israel dying for Israel's own sins? Are they pure enough to be their own sacrifice? Not really because they sinned so they can't be pure. Therefore they need a lamb that is "without blemish and spotless" as Moses taught. So who is this man that is like this?

Jesus is Israel. So we know for example that Isaiah 49:3-4 is also about Jesus as is Isaiah 42:1-4 and Isaiah 50:10. Jesus is the eternal Israel for all those who really understand Isaiah. Because Jesus is the resurrection; not Jacob. Jacob was named Israel but he died and they carried his body out of Egypt to bury in Canaan. Now then ... he remains dead until the resurrection comes. (Daniel 12:13) The resurrection is new life from the dead. Therefore, all those resurrected are born to Jesus Christ because He is the "firstborn from the dead". So what that means is that all those who will live forever will be born after Jesus. Born into His body. So Jesus is the true Israel that lives forever. That's what you're not understanding.

As for the claim it's about Israel leaving Babylon, that is partially true in a sense about much of later Isaiah; but it has spiritual implications that extend to today. But another thing to remember as that this was not all one work. It's compiled together.

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

 

[VoidoftheSun]

IHow does Israel carry his own sorrows etc?

By disobeying God, very obviously.

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

 

[arcanum]

Basically, Satan had to take the bait and be convinced he was winning a victory somehow when he had Jesus killed. We know that according to the scriptures it was Satan who inspired people to kill Jesus because:

John 14:30, Jesus claimed the prince of this world(satan) was coming right before He died.
Luke 22:3 It was Satan who entered Judas to inspire him to betray Jesus.
Luke 23:34, Jesus says the people don't really know what they're doing. Which implies some kind of supernatural evil is at work moving them to do it.
1 Corinthians 2:8, it was the "princes of this world" who put Jesus to death because they did not know He would rise from the dead and therefore take all power in heaven and earth.

Who are the princes of this world? Clearly, from Daniel 10:20 we know that the "princes of this world" are non-human demonic forces set up as regional or national princes in satan's kingdom.

Which is what Paul is talking about here:
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

and here:
Colossians 2:11-15
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

I want to specifically address your first paragraph "The prophecies of Jesus death and resurrection are hidden and vague on purpose because God needed Satan to actually go through with it. If you put yourself in Satan's shoes then you'll see that he would never kill Jesus if he knew beforehand that Jesus would rise from the dead and destroy his(satan's) power in the process. Since we know that Satan does study the scriptures; it becomes clear that God had to hide the fact that Jesus would die and rise from the dead."

Ok, I was raised with a similar sort of teaching, which made sense to me as a child raised as an evangelical, where the devil played the spoil for everything, literally. But this idea that Satan could get one over on God, that God had to smuggle Jesus down secretly, and hope Satan wouldn't find out about it otherwise he wouldn't allow Jesus to be killed and thus fulfill his mission....it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to me now. And you say that's why the passages that refer to the future messiah had to be kept secret and vague? I can't get on board with that at all. What that would mean is that which is closer to the Zoroastrian idea, where the good god and the evil god are just about equals, struggling constantly, an eternal contest of wills for eternity if you will. But that's not how the New Testament portrays this struggle, Satan is certainly not equal to God, although he's portrayed as very powerful, how could he fool God or have the power to foil God's plan? If he could fool God than God isn't all powerful, all knowing etc. It seems like each OT passage that possibly could be construed to mean a future dying and rising from the dead Jewish messiah, gets easily handled by guys like Rabbi Tovia Singer, who has a YouTube channel, where he eats these questions for lunch all day long. It almost seems better to not so much reply on the OT to validate the truths of the NT, because you are going to run into problems and read into the text meanings that are out of context from what the original author meant. I say this after watching a lot of debates, and see where the weakness in these matters lie. Say you go up against a learned Jewish religious person, and you meet them on their turf, meaning their scriptures, and try to tell them what their scriptures really mean, you might soon find yourself out of your league and over your head quickly. It seems better to have a good understanding of the OT and a respect, so as to give one a good context and backdrop of the NT. But once you try reading into the OT things that aren't really there, or not what they originally meant, well you can go off into error. This is the problems many Christian face who rely to heavily on the OT to inform their NT faith, which is why there are so many different understandings and ways interpreting scripture all across the Christian denominational landscape. My original post on this thread was just one of the problematic verses I've encountered while trying to prove Jesus was the Jewish messiah from OT. Looking for passages that are clear on this matter is a very difficult job, because when nobody agrees on the meaning scripture, than almost nothing in the bible is very clear.