christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

con insists Jesus' death fulfilled a technical legal requirement with God, where his death substituted our eternal damnation, and appeased God's wrath. con has shown sacrifices are used, and even that Jesus' death as a sacrifice.. i concede every example of sacrifice he uses, even Jesus', i just dispute the meaning behind it all. all con has shown on the wrath point, is a rhetorical question and no explicit biblical support. he mixes up atoning for one's sin, and appeasing God's wrath. asks how are the OT sacrifices not made to appease wrath? he also says i have not shown how wrath could be fulfilled by what you get in the afterlife, the levels of heaven and hell. the issue is that con ignores my points about what the sacrifices mean mentioned earlier about self sacrifice etc. and, the bible should be known by everyone to have lots of material on getting what you deserve. what you deserve. the parable of the "talents", where the servants reaped wht they sow. there are tons of passages that are explicit on the reaping what you sow point, peraps having made those terms common use. generally there's the sheep and goats point where you are rewarded for what you did in life etc. plenty more examples. http://www.gotquestions.org... i agree that the bible says that God has wrath against sin. why wouldn't a loving God follow the saying, "love the sinner hate the sin"? this doesn't indicate sacrifices to appease God's wrath. or isn't it natural, that a person would want to atone for his sins? so he makes sacrifices for the reasons i listed before. atoning for one's sin and appeasing God's wrath and very much different legal transaction. con's arguments in that regard is even less supported than con's wrath points. no real susport. we have just as much reason to think it's about relationships, than legal transactions. again, the taco example. or the bottom line of self sacrifice being initiated by the person being transgressed against. this is thinking in the mode of relationships, not legal requirements. you can spin it as a legal requirement to be involved in a friendship, to buy your friend a taco. but it misses the point and connotes something that actually is not present. pointless substitutionary death of an innocent person. con as even less merit here than he did with wrath and and less than legal transactions. instead of pointless death, we have God man setting aside possible wrath against his killers and us as people, turning the cheek for us. the cycle of eye for an eye, and sin, was broken permanently when Jesus turned the cheek. God wouldn't let Jesus die, love conquers death. pure divine love. we are mere men, so cannot conquer death on our own. we live cause he lives, we are saved because he desires us to be saved. like the prodigal son, the father comes to him, and is willing to be beaten to death before he retaliates allows his son and the people to die or be damned. it is an act of pure love, pure self sacrifice, that breaks the cycle and brings life. i showed earlier passages about conquering sin and death etc. this has more biblical support than substutionary death. i write out the philophy behind it, not because con might dispute much of it, but because it makes it more scientific sounding, what people often like from SV. id encourage us to go back to the fathers. i notice con didnt really talk much about it last post. we should defer to the fathers unless we have reason to think otherwise. CV makes more sense from a loving father, and it's just as if not more supported biblically, so we should defer to the fathers. the unifying theme from the fathers is not ransom and verious metaphors, it's about defeating sin and death. SV, however, is not present in the early church. not only that, it didnt come until a thousand years after christ. which makes more sense to call a man made doctrine? also, it actually adds an element of the real world, of authenticity, to acknowledge that the bible could have error in it. con says he could say the bible is mistaken, in a way that advantages him. this is true, no disputing it. i'd argue though that we are putting aside potential errors in a way that makes God loving and that makes sense to us. i agree we are not necessarily arbiters of objective truth, but there's no reason our sensibilities are not what God actually believes.