the christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary view

Look, I can’t argue with you until you make up your mind: R1: “Christus Victor is about overthrowing the power of the law, not about satisfying an obligation to it, arguably.” R2: “whether CV overthrows the law or satisfies the law, isnt really the essence of CV.” This is the core issue and what we are arguing about. You made it clear that there was no need to satisfy God’s wrath and that Jesus came to overthrow the law and Not to fulfill it... That was your argument. “just because it's the first beliefs doesn't make it best necessarily, but it gives it credibility, and the earliest Christians probably knew more than we do.” When your view is based on a tradition you assume the founders necessarily knew more than you but this is a brazen assertion with no evidence to back it up. The early years of the church were chaotic and a variety of contradictory views were supported [5]. All modern doctrines were questioned from the divinity of Jesus to ironically the meaning of Jesus’ death. The early church operated based on word of mouth since there was no accepted scripture or doctrine [6]. There were many books were in circulation that were read by churches as teaching but not ultimately accepted as part of the bible. Paul himself warned of the forged letters in circulation which were not reliable in 2 Thessalonians 3:17. “but i like to say CV is about overthrowing the power of the law, cause that's usually how forgiveness works, "just letting it slide". this is basically how id address your wrath point too. “ There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament and, as I mentioned, 595 references to wrath against sin. Why was the law/wrath tossed out without being satisfied? “and id add that it is a pagan idea that sacrifices are to appease God's wrath. the origianl idea behind sacrifices was giving up of self for another's benefit, or honor. but not in an appeasing wrath kind of way. yes sacrifices are good, even Jesus' sacrifice...” That Jesus overthrew the power of the law in no way is contrary to the idea of Substitutionary Attonement and I agree this idea is clear in scripture. I demonstrated that sacrifice was needed to atone for sin, which is your objection in the first place. You assert that this is a pagan idea, which is irrelevant. If sacrifices are not about appeasing God’s wrath then how does your view deal with wrath or sin? “…and the emphasis on his resurrection doesn't preclude substitutionary, but it is better emphasized by CV.” If your view includes Substitutionary Sacrifice then how is it better? How is it that this is a debate in any sense of the word? Biblical accuracy is a point you have conceded You have not been able to counter the biblical case I have set up. You have essentially conceded that Substitutional Attonement is clear in the bible and have now tried to include it as part of your view. “is it really better to say that Jesus' death was the only way to pay the price of a legal requiremet? what was actually accomplshed? and the bible says innocent people should not be held accountable for other's sins,” Better than what? You have agreed that our positions are compatible. The bible does not acknowledge that anyone is free from sin, see Romans 3 and many other references to original sin. “im not sure what you mean, that you say i'm just pointing out errors. i dont find error with the word propiation in the bible.” Sure, I may have focused too much on your source. I would appreciate a better link. My case does not rest on your refutation of Romans 3:25 and I would tend to trust linguists on their interpretation of scripture. Please fix your shift key. Great debate! [5] http://www.amazon.com... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...