christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

i give props to con for a well thought out argument for SV. i will respond to his points mostly by drawing attention back to verses and points made in the intial post. con says that the OT is ripe with legal requirements of animal sacrifice and other ways of appeasing God's dissatisfaction with sin. no where, though, does it say that those sacrifices are to appease God's wrath, or his justice, via the merits of the sacrifice itself. the OT also points out the merit behind the sacrifice is the motive behind it... the death of an animal represents a sacrifice of your farm stock, it represents your acknowledgement that the wages of sin is death, it's a self sacrifice. all this stuff first and foremost before a legal act to fulfill God's justice etc. it is more the mode of bringing communion with God. it isn't a requirement so much as a "this is how we are to reconcile with each other". if a friend says i buy a taco for you, you buy a taco for me, this is teh first step in a relationship of giving. if you have to be ordered, it isn't much of a reciprocal gift, but the friend is telling you how it is done. if you want to call it a requirement, you are free to do so, but the tones involved make it sound like a tit for tat thing, when the essence is much pure-er than that. "The New Testament understanding of sacrifice as an act of self-sacrificing love traces back to this Old Testament understanding of the korban. There is certainly here the concept of vicarious atonement, meaning that through the sacrifice we are reconciled to God, but not understood in the legal context of a requirement or an appeasement but as an act of communion." "The true gift to God is to "wash and make yourselves clean" and to seek justice by defending the oppressed and the broken. The Hebrew word translated as "sacrifice" is korban. The root karev means to "draw close." Sacrifices are to help us draw close to God" drawing closer, communion, etc are better accomplished with self sacrifice and other motives. jesus washed and made himself clean. he set aside retaliation and other problems, against his accursers, and in a general sense us as a human race. it's the first act of reconciliation, the first hand is extended. salvation is presented. the OT says what the meaning was behind the prior acts. the acts themselves do little to apprease God, or legal requirements, but a "communnal act requirement". "The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the Lord . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" Stop bringing meaningless offerings!... wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isa 1:11,13,16-17) "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God, more than burnt offering". (Hosea 6:6) "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". (Psalm 51: 16-17) Jesus knew the real meaning behind it all. and he gave himself in that way, self sacrifice, turning the cheek, allowing his death to trump death for himself and his loved ones. no where does con show where wrath is appeased by the OT rules. or that the acts themselves merit or mean much of anything. wrath and justice are fulfilled when you get a lower level of heaven, or different level of hell, or are not resurrected at all. whatever the afterlife has in store for us. it is not uncommon to argue that Jews did not beleive in hell as understood by christians. most tones of hell are based on pagan ideas and questionable bible verses. my point being, the structures of heaven and hell are more open to interpretation and ideas than simply you etiher get heaven and absolute bliss, or hell and literal hellfire. this all gives wiggle room for levels of reward and nonreward, the consequnces of sin and whatever wrath God has. or justice or whatever. some argue that the bible is not the word for word word of God. this is only a secondary argument, as i previouslyu have been arguing how to interpret CV with an infallible source. it is somewhat ridiculous that woman's period be considered unclean, and doves and other sacrifices be made. just to use one example. animal sacrifices in general are questionable. dont throw the baby out with the bath water, though. christainty can still be true even if the bible isn't compltely true. there is a "law" even if it's not down to the specific iota rules of the OT. jesus would have surely knew this when he said he came to fulfill the law. he would have meant the real law. but even if it's an infallible law, the arguments here for CV still hold. even the consequences of sin and techncial consequences of the law, like death and specific animals and doings, can be said to have been satisfied with Jesus' death. the law is defeated for death, by Jesus. the law is deafeated even to fundamentalist chrsitans, when things like a list of jewish rules no longer apply. yet moral codes and other considerations do apply. "Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14) the gist of the sacrifices are fulfilled.. the communional aspects. this verse is not necessarily in contradiction with the verse that says he came to fulfill the law. the verses are referring to different things, especially if we are assuming an infallible source to begin with. we might just be getting hung on on "requirement". was Jesus' death a requirement? in some sense, but not in an appeasing wrath sense, or a tit for tat sense. a technical legal requirement is not at all the best way of articulating the requirement, especially if it's to fulfill wrath. it is the first act of communion... an act that has the ability to save mankind, and demonstrates the willingness of God to save mankind. as to the fathers debate issue. the book in the wiki article showed that no one in the early church tlked about the issue in terms of infinite justify, wrath, and legal requirements. these are all concepts developed by St Anslem. he is only a person can can be wrong. even the wiki artical is hesitatant about stressing metaphors about the devil and ransome etc used by many in the early church, instead referring to the underling general talk of defeating death and sin and evil, etc that unifed all christian beliefs. no where in this talk is legal requirements and wrath etc. this is essentially an idea thought to explain the bible etc, but that doesn't necessarily do so. it is quite possibly, and id argue probably, an invention of man. so, we have merely academic arguements for and against each atonement theory. both are somewhat reasonable. CV has church father stamp to go with it. and as a matter of what actually fits better with a loving God, it goes with that view too. so, on balance, CV is the better theory.