Jesus's death was NOT the greatest sacrifice ever known.

P1: The nature of sacrificeTo quote my opponent, "the nature of sacrifice is that something is lost, such that a greater good can come of it. " I agree entirely. This is exactly what happens in the Bible. Jesus' both the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to sacrifice an eternal life of whatever He wanted, to come down to Earth and teach, care for, and eventually die for, us. He didn't have to even enter this Earth. He didn't have to do anything for humanity. Being God, He could've created us to be little robots or scared little creatures that ran from an Almighty boot that periodically squished us for His entertainment. But rather, He created us in love. Desiring an eternal relationship with us, He entered His earthly body, what my opponent rightly called "a husk, or shell; a set of old clothes that actually kept Him from entering the kindgom of God". It would be like a millionaire, billionaire, googol-aire, whatever, who had anything they could ever ask for. They had no obligation to anyone, and were not morally restricted. Yet, they saw all the poor of their surrounding city or hometown, and they decided to live with them, bless them, and give them things. Eventually, they had to go home, but not before they subjected themselves to torture (at the hands of those he had blessed), to create a way for all those less fortunate to live with him in paradise for eternity. That is essentially the story of Jesus' sacrifice. He lost everything. He went from a God with literally everything and nothing to hold Him back, not physics, morals, nor even logic. .. to a Man. .. with no home, money, safety, or even a friend to help Him in His time of need. He did that all for the people who killed Him. And that's not a sacrifice? Who else has done this? Who else has even had the status that He did? Who can say that they've been God. .. and gave it up? Yes. He returned to being God, but that's because He is who He is. If a soldier goes on the front lines and fights, is wounded, tortured, and suffers this all, but is able to return home. Is his sacrifice lessened by the fact that he didn't die? Neither would it make sense for God's sacrifice to be cheapened by the fact that He returned, especially since it was because He could stay God that we have the ability to live eternally in heaven. P2: A greater sacrficeI agree that the examples my opponent provides are great sacrifices. However, I've already shown that Jesus' sacrifice was greater due to the fact that He gave up an infinite amount of everything in order to give us eternal life in bliss. Any sacrifice includes the giving away of something valued and precious to gain something even greater. Maybe it's not personal gain, as in the case of Jesus. But in all cases the thing gained must be of higher value in the eyes of the one who is sacrificing (E. G. those the soldier dies defending). Whether or not someone believes or knows they have something waiting on the other side is inconsequential. Just like with the soldier who didn't die, his sacrfice is not cheapened by his survival. He still gave up everything for the benefit of others. However, the things he gave up pale in comparison to Jesus' things He gave up. And the benefits gained for others are a mere shadow of the benefits from Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus did not kill, but made a way for life. I do not see the comparison between the evil acts listed by my opponent, and the Holy sacrifice by Jesus Christ. Jesus gave up His own life, and provided an option for people to live in perfection. These people and acts describe murdering and taking away the life of people, something the Bible tells us not to do, in order to "send them to heaven". If this was truly a moral act in Christianity worldview, there wouldn't be an opposition to abortion, would there? No. Next, my opponent seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how one is saved. We are not saved by works in Christianity, but through the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. The idea of "murdering enough people to get to heaven" is nowhere supported in scripture, quite preposterous and perverse, and is unrelated to this debate round. These "murderers" in the Bible that my opponent says are "lionized" are not so for their murderous acts. When they do kill wrongly, they are punished for it. (Such as Moses being outcast, or Samson going blind and being tortured. ) However, if my opponent refers to Samson's killing of the Phillistines after they gauged his eyes out and enslaved him, I will remind him that they were at war. As for Jesus "realizing" something on the cross, this is unsupported by scripture again. Jesus was just asking why God has forsaken Him, because He had never felt something like it before. He was literally going to Hell for humanity's good. That is worse than death. I think this actually strengthens my case, and thank my opponent for bringing it up. I think I've said all I need to say in the rebuttals to my opponent's points. Jesus wasn't promoting Himself. He never had to come down. He never even had to give us hope for life. He chose to enter Earth, to confine Himself, spend time with us, die for us, go to Hell for us (knowingly. .. which, as I will point out, is something an atheist has never done, considering their lack of belief in Hell). He did this all to give us the greatest opportunity ever. Yet my opponent insists that this was selfish on His part. I can't think of anything greater. I certainly can't even consider going to Hell for someone, much less when I wouldn't be morally obligated to, have any reason to, and that person hated me. Can you? Would you? I look forward to my opponent's response.