I believe your paper has substantial chances of getting finally accepted, if you can address adequately all the three reviewers' concerns.
Regarding the reason for the apparent discrepancy between two reviewers and one reviewer and the editor, I think it has to do mainly with priority and the actual reasons provided by the reviewers.
If your paper is not that perfect but perceived by the editor (and reviewers) as being scientifically hot, it may be deemed suitable for publication, even if only to foster scholarly discussion.
In addition, if the reasons accounting for the rejection recommendations are addressable, at least in the eyes of the editor, then such recommendations may seem less stringent.
Furthermore, it might be that the two rejecting reviewers are seen as less competent or independent than the other one.
In any case, this scenario tells you that this editor likes to manage the journal with some subjectivity, which is not a bad thing in itself.
One question though: did he ask for a de novo resubmission?