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.” Here you misrepresent my position. I did not assert that the sacrifice fulfills a technicality; I referred to the 100+ references to a ‘sin offering’ in the Old Testament explaining that this was a major theme and that there was a need to reconcile this with the New Testament. I presented several scriptures that indicate that a sin sacrifice was needed and fulfilled by Jesus, which is denied by CV. See Romans 8:3-4 “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us.” - Karma The parable you present to argue that God’s wrath is fulfilled by karma refers to ultimate judgment and not consequences in this life. The parable of the talents in matt 25:14-30 refers to God’s return an ultimate judgment sending the offender to hell. Verse 30 says, “(I will) throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” If there are tons of examples in the bible that support karma you should have found a better example. The bible does not support that people get what they deserve in this life. A major theme of the bible is that good people should expect to suffer in this life and that evil men are better off until the ultimate judgment consistent with your example. 1 Peter 3:17, “For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.” Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Habakkuk 1:13, “why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he? “ - “I agree that the bible says that God has wrath against sin.” I have demonstrated that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, which clearly removes the motivation for God’s wrath. This is a stronger explanation for the removal of wrath than your assumption that wrath is dealt with at different levels of an afterlife or through a version of karma. I have conceded that God desires a relationship, which is a major reason to arrange forgiveness of sins and this does not support either position. The motivation behind atonement does not remove the obvious need for a sacrifice. Sacrifice is a requirement for the forgiveness of sins clearly supported in Old Testament Law. Why is this no longer required? CV has no answer. - “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.” Your analogy is flawed. We are not God’s buddies although he may want to be friendly towards us. A friend does not require the other to follow 613 laws and the death of an animal to forgive an infraction of these laws. Romans 4:9 connects the blood sacrifice offered by Jesus with the removal of God’s wrath, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! “ - God wouldn't let Jesus die, love conquers death. You present several arguments that can support either position but cannot dispute the arguments I have laid out to support the need for a substitute sacrifice. Again I agree the motivation is often presented as love in the New Testament and that Jesus conquered death. You have not presented arguments that support CV. How is it that a block of text like this supports your position over mine? “ 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.” I concede that Jesus sacrifice was intensely personal and difficult while still fulfilling the Old Testament sacrificial law. - “I’d encourage us to go back to the fathers. I notice con didn’t really talk much about it last post.” I did not refute this point last round because you have not responded to my arguments. You simply repeat that the early church was an authority without backing this up. I barely felt the need to respond to your original assertion since it was presented without evidence. Why should I feel the need to respond after you drop my arguments and have presented none of your own? I get that you believe the early church was an authority. Why do you believe this? You have not provided evidence. Speaking of dropped arguments, you have not responded to my refutation of your propitiation position, the clear need for an atoning sacrifice or reconciled God’s Old Testament, angry dissatisfaction with mankind to the loving savior presented in the New Testament. - Biblical Accuracy Again you say that there must be errors in the bible that help your position. What errors? Why do you believe the scriptures I have referenced are not accurate? Bringing up a potential rebuttal without presenting any evidence for it is not an argument. Referring to potential errors in the bible you say, “I'd argue though that we are putting aside potential errors in a way that makes God loving and that makes sense to us.” Why does God make sense to you if everything written about him is in this error ridden bible and how do you know that the scriptures that present God as loving are not in error? --- I enjoyed the debate; I think you are more influenced by extra biblical teaching than the bible. You really need extra biblical sources to support Christus Victor, which you did not provide. If you are willing to use extra biblical sources I would recommend Carl Sagan’s ‘Demon Haunted World,’ over commentaries on the bible.