Let $k$ be a field and $\bar{k}$ its algebraic closure. An algebraic zero of a subset $\Phi$ of $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is an element $(a_1,\dots,a_n) \in \bar{k}^n$ such that $f(a_1,\dots,a_n)=0, \, \forall f \in \Phi$. Then Hilbert's Nullstellensatz says that if $g \in k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ vanishes at every algebraic zero of $\Phi$, then $g$ is inside the radical of the ideal generated by $\Phi$ (Matsumura, Theorem 5.4).
The next key thing to observe is that given an ideal $I$ of $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, there is a $1-1$ correspondence between algebraic zeros of $I$ and maximal ideals of $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ that contain $I$. To see that, note that if $m$ is a maximal ideal that contains $I$ and we define $a_i$ to be the class of $x_i$ mod $m$, then $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ is an algebraic zero of $I$ by the Zariski Lemma. Conversely, if $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ is an algebraic zero, then $k[a_1,\dots,a_n] = k(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and the kernel of the $k$-algebra homomorphism $k[x_1,\dots,x_n] \rightarrow k[a_1,\dots,a_n]$ that sends $x_i$ to $a_i$ is a maximal ideal (Matsumura, Theorem 5.1).
Finally, we clearly have that $I \subset \cap_{m \supset I} m$. Conversely, let $f \in \cap_{m \supset I} m$. Then $f$ vanishes at every algebraic zero of $I$ and by Hilbert's Nullstellensatz $f \in \sqrt{I}$.
Your idea that finitely generated ideals are "small" and non-finitely generated ideals are "large" is misleading. Think about $R = \Bbb{Z}[X_1, X_2, \ldots]$, the ring of polynomials over the integers in countably many variables $X_1, X_2, \ldots$ If you define $J_k = \langle X_1, \ldots, X_k\rangle$, then $J_1 \subseteq J_2 \subseteq \ldots$ is a strictly increasing chain of ideals, so $R$ is not Noetherian. The finitely generated ideal $J = \langle 2 \rangle $ properly contains the non-finitely generated ideal $K = \langle 2X_1, 2X_2, \ldots \rangle$. For any prime $p$, the ideal $L_p$ comprising the polynomials with constant term a multiple of $p$ is maximal non-finitely generated.
Best Answer
I propose the following: suppose $\,U\,$ is not prime, thus there exist $$\,x,y\in R \text{ such that }x,y\notin U\,,\,xy\in U\,.$$ Define now $B:=U+\langle y\rangle$.
By maximality of $\,U\,$ we have that $\,B\,$ is f.g., say $$\,B=\Bigl\langle u_i+r_iy\,,\,1\leq i\leq k\,,\,k\in\mathbb{N}\,\,;\,\,u_i\in U\,,\,r_i\in R\Bigr\rangle$$ and let now $$U_y:=\{s\in R\,\,;\,\,sy\in U\}.$$ (1) Check that $\,U_y\,$ is a proper ideal in $\,R\,$.
(2) Show that $\,U_y\,$ is f.g.
Put $\,U_y=\langle s_1,\ldots,s_m\rangle\,$, and take $\,u\in U\Longrightarrow\,\exists v_1,\ldots,v_k, t_1,\ldots,t_k\in R\,\,s.t.$$$u=\sum_{n=1}^kv_nu_n+\sum_{n=1}^kt_nr_ny.$$ (3) Show that $\displaystyle{\sum_{n=1}^kt_nr_n}\in U_y.$
(4) Putting $\,\Omega:=\{u_i,\ldots,u_k,ys_1,\ldots,ys_m\}\,$, derive the contradiction $\,U=\langle\Omega\rangle$.