Okay, thank you. For #1, I just wanted to confirm. Based on your answer to #2, I will assume you don't regard Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus as having actually happened. I disagree with your assessment of John's Gospel, but okay, I will set it aside for the purposes of this discussion. That leaves us with...

Paul.

Based on Romans alone, I don't see how you can say that substitutionary atonement isn't something that Paul taught. It's all through Romans.

He may not have used the term, but the concept is very much present. We are sinners. Yet we can be reconciled to God through Christ because He died for us and rose again. It's a central theme in Romans.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I just genuinely don't understand how you can say it's not there.