I see what you are saying. It just seem to me that it's different. Jesus was always God and was given a physical body for the sole purpose of living on earth for a short moment (compared to eternity) then returning back to what he was before. Where as an animal or human (like the soldier mentioed) they have no recolection of what things was like before they were born in their physical body; all they know is their experiences of the physical world and when they give it up, they are giving up all they know.
I just think it's asking more to ask a person to give up everything they know for a cause (like a human or animal) than to ask somebody to give up something they had no intention of keeping in the first place. (as with Jesus).
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one huh?
Ken
That can clearly indicate that Jesus sacrificed his life on earth (sacrificed his flesh-body),not his spiritual body.
From the google dictionnary :
noun /ˈsakrəˌfīs/ 
sacrifices, plural
(YES)*An act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure
- they offer sacrifices to the spirits
- the ancient laws of animal sacrifice
(YES)*An animal, person, or object offered in this way
(YES)*An act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy
- we must all be prepared to make sacrifices
(YES!)*Christ's offering of himself in the Crucifixion
As you see here, depends on which definition you're talking about. The term "sacrifice" has to be applied therefore, because it is true. Nobody ever said that the sacrifice meant that he has offered his spiritual life to god
for us, but his life in the flesh.
Upvote
0