Of note, South Park did actually change at least one detail of the historical Jesus. He chose a rabbit to be one of his twelve disciples (St. Peter / Peter Rabbit).
Also, I agree 100% with the OP. There is clearly a difference in a character being Christ-like versus being a fictional representation of Christ. I honestly don’t understand why it’s a difficult concept to understand.
Heh - I forgot about that. 
Honestly, I don’t think this is a subjective question. It’s not a matter of interpretation: Aslan is directly, in the text, stated to be the same person as Jesus Christ. Period, full stop, end of issue. It’s no more a matter of opinion than if someone asked, “Is Aslan a lion?”
Anyway, even if it were a matter of opinion, in the post that Munch was responding to, you were asking a question that had already been answered at least three times before you asked it.
I think this misstates the point of disagreement. The point isn’t that people are denying that the text says this, but rather are saying that there is little if any practical conceptual difference between the statements “Aslan is Christ” and “Aslan is a Christ-like figure.”
Is it? That’s not the read I get from posts 32 or 38. Little Nemo and Apolloyon both seem to be arguing that Aslan is not the same character as Jesus, regardless of what the text says.
I think both Little Nemo and Apollyon’s comments illustrate the point that there is practically no difference between the two, because in attempting to write a fictional story about Christ, you are by necessity writing about a Christ-like figure.
Dude. Chuck Norris just destroyed your post by glancing at it.
That’s not necessarily true, though. Imagine if I wrote a Biblical satire, in which Jesus Christ is a greedy, black-hearted charlatan, who deliberately and cruelly manipulates people into believing that he’s the Son of God, and at the end, fakes his own death and resurrection, for the express purpose of founding a false religion. Have I written a story about Christ? Yes. Have I written a story about a Christ-like figure? Emphatically not.
It’s not people, it’s me, & I’ve been calling Jack Lewis “Jack Lewis” for years. One does not refer to John Ronald Tolkien as “John” because a) everyone not related to him called him “Tolkien” anyway, & b) his name was “John Ronald.” But Jack Lewis was “Jack” from a young age, & “cee ess” is not a name.
Anything can be a name.
By signing his works, “C. S. Lewis,” he was using “C. S.” as a name. Lots of people use their initials this way.
“C. S.” stands for “Clive Staples,” which was his legal name.
I always cringe at people using intimate nicknames of famous people when they never had any intimate relationship with that person.
Pfft. His name was Jack. I don’t call P.D. James “Phyllis” because I don’t care about P.D. James. But Lewis was a huge influence on me as a child, a source of great irritation later, & still looms too large in my head for me to be polite about him.
Consider it a mark of intellectual familiarity with a touch of–well, bemusement more than contempt as such. Like how I almost never call Barry Obama “Barack.”
Exceptionally good point.
I’m not quite sure I understand. In the movie Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, is the character of Jesus “Christ” or “Christ-like”?
Ah, yes, I’d forgotten about the breath imagery, Skammer.
These can be distinct, but they don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I agree with the poster who gave the great example of a character who is Christ, but not at all “Christ-like”. “Christ” is an identity whereas “Christ-like” and even “Christ-figure” are descriptions, and descriptions which can varying degrees of strength.
Now of course, one could argue that using a term like “Christ-figure” implies that the person quoted is ignorant of the additional intention of a Christ-identity, but since we’ve already decided to have a super pedantic argument, we must give the person the benefit of the doubt as they have passed on a technicality.
No fair being pedantic about your own argument and then trying to use pragmatism against the opposition.
Funny though that the Christ of Narnia would be a lion. There really is something in (some) Christians that while they pay homage to the benevolent, wimpish figure of Christ as he is depicted in the Bible, resent that posture as being weak, and have to go for supermacho compensation. Would explain why all the angels seem to be on steroids when represented in extremist Christian prop.
If Christ is a Lion, and zucchini is a fruit, then what is Chuck Norris?
It’s also biblical, as Christ is the Lion of Judah from Revelation 5:5. And that book itself shows a much less wispy Jesus.
Anyways, I just popped in to say that one can be both the character of Christ AND a Christ-like figure. One is referring to the identity of the character in the work, while the other is relating the character to the character from the New Testament (or, as many Christians would say, the real world.) In TVTropes terms, he’s a Captain Ersatz, although for a different reason than usual.
(And the OP thinks that Neeson thinks he’s an Expy. I only mention it because I get those two mixed up all the time.)
ETA: And, yes, I realize that point was already made, in more words. But I like my take on it.
You call the president “Barry Obama” when referring to him in conversation?
Only when he’s talking to him.