The truth is there is no scripture that says Messiah will suffer for sin, die and three days later be raised. The NT authors do this frequently and the goal is replacement theology. That Jesus Christ replaces the prophesies toward and about Israel.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preachedunto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By whichalso ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you,unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of allthat which I also received, how that Christ died for our sinsaccording to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that herose again the third day according to the scriptures: {1Co 15:1-4KJV}
There are NO scriptures (writings) in Tanakh that say this or what the Jesus of Luke is saying.
I want to address some of the other answers that come from Christian presuppositions.
Isaac's sacrifice for example is a type of the father sacrificing his'only' son. (Which apparently also transpired over 3 days - Abrahamreceiving his son 'back from the dead' Genesis 22:4)
The purpose of this act wasn't to provide a shadow of what YHWH would do to his own son. He provided the sacrifice then and there, a Ram. The purpose was to destroy the god of Ur (a Ram) and abolish the idea that YHWH needed human sacrifice. You see these nations all sacrificed their first born to various gods - Rams, Sheeps, Goats, Cows, etc. We see the same thing during the passover - and this is also why it's offensive to call the Messiah the "lamb of God". The lamb was destroyed because it represented pagan gods of Egypt.
They were killing the Egyptian gods, putting it's blood all over their door frame, and then eating the Egyptian God. By doing this, Father YHWH promised to protect them from the angel of death. YHWH wasn't setting in place some shadow of a human / God or son of God to become a "lamb" to be offered on passover on a Roman cross.
This is not possible, if you believe he was "sinless" this very act would make him a transgressor of the "law" or Torah.
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination tothe LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for eventheir sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to theirgods. {Deu 12:31 KJV}
What happens to the Passover offering? It is burnt, consumed in the fire and offered to YHWH. He tells us do not offer to the gods of the nations (rams, goats, etc) your SONS and DAUGHTERS.
How then can we believe YHWH offered his own son as a burnt offering as a lamb of God?
It is offensive to YHWH.
Hosea targeted Israel for this prophecy but it was a double prophecyfulfilled in Christ finally.
I don't blame the person who wrote this - this is how the NT teaches people to read the Tanakh. That Messiah replaces the promises and scripture to Israel. It's why they read Messiah into Isaiah 53 as well, a scripture thoroughly about Israel in the context.
Hosea's writings are about Israel. Not the Messiah.
Here is why people do that, from the first book of the NT.
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilledwhich was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypthave I called my son. {Mat 2:15 KJV}
The author of Matthew claims the events he's recording were prophesied by the "prophet" (Which is Hosea) that the Messiah will be called out of Egypt. PLEASE when you see the NT reference the writings of the Tanakh (OT) compare them side by side.
When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son outof Egypt. {Hos 11:1 KJV}
This isn't even prophetic, it is about Israel HIS CHILD. About how YHWH called Israel out of Egypt when he was but a child. Read the context of Hosea 11. There is no way to justify the replacement theology of the NT Matthew when you do.
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] myson, [even] my firstborn: {Exo 4:22 KJV}
When you see these side by side, I pray you see the replacement theology the NT writers were trying to implant in people's minds.
Blessings