Well, the main argument some Christians (or wouldbe Christians) make that God wouldn't mind being addressed as or thought of as female is that God only describes itself as male in the Bible because that was the only way patriarchal Middle Eastern culture could comprehend him/her. From a biblical perspective, I don't think this argument holds up to much thought. 

There have been plenty of cultures, including ones, such as ancient Greece, in which women had few rights, that believed in goddesses. Isis. Ishtar. Asherah. Athena. The list goes on. It's a huge assumption to assume that Abraham just wouldn't have been able to accept God being female. 

And even if it were true...the Bible doesn't really portray God as trying to make Himself acceptable to human beings. His tendency is to give ultimatums to human beings who displease Him and wipe them out or otherwise severely punish them if they won't comply. If the God of the Bible hadn't wanted to be thought of as male, "she" would have let humanity know in no uncertain terms. 

Of course, that's arguably different from the topic of whether a female Alsan would be theologically sound since Aslan is a fantasy character. 

Whether it is theologically sound or not I guess depends on your views on theology. 

From a purely logical point of view however I could definitely see that it would make no sense, in a monotheistic religion like Christianity, to apply the rules of binary Male-Female gender to a god that is by definition the one and only.God. 

I can’t think of any reason why Aslan should be of a different gender than Jesus in the Bible.  From the Bible’s portrayal of Christ he is always referred to as male, and if Aslan is Christ why change the gender?  Theology is mainly something that pastors study, and ordinary Christians don’t think about it that much. So if you have faith in the Bible just accept it as God’s word that he is always referred to as male. You don’t need to be a theologian to understand that. Faith should be enough.

My thoughts for what it is worth.  (Take with a grain of salt – as I am just some guy on the internet.)

In the bible, both men and women are created in the image of God.

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”  (Genesis 1:27)

NOTE: the word “mankind” here is sometimes translated as “man” – it is the Hebrew word “Adam” (the same as the name of the first male human).  This word sometimes means “humanity / mankind” as a whole, regardless of gender, sometimes it refers to an individual human, sometimes it refers to a single, male human and sometimes it refers to a particular guy name “Adam” as in Genesis 1-3.  The context has to be used to determine which usage is present in any given text.  The fact that both “male” and “female” are mentioned in this verse as a part of “Adam” makes it clear that this verse refers to humanity as a whole.

Neither gender is more or less ‘god-like’.  God is also not gendered in that the Father, the Son (prior to the incarnation) and the Holy Spirit do not have male or female anatomy.

I suspect the issue you are raising is partly one that has been raised for centuries, I.e. to quote the 20^th Century theologian, James B. Torrance:

An issue widely discussed in many churches throughout the world is the question, raised not least by the feminist movement, about the language we use for God. When we talk about God as Father and Son and speak about the Son of God becoming Son of Man that we "sons of men" might become "sons of God by grace," is this not the result of projecting male, sexist, patriarchal language onto God? Is this not the product of a male-dominated culture, both in the Bible and down the centuries? If we may use masculine language, it is asked, can we not also use feminine language and feminine images of God and add the concept of motherliness to express more fully the love and compassion in the heart of God? Also, there is the proper concern to use inclusive language in our worship.

(I might quote from this essay a lot as I found it really helpful on this stuff.)

The same point is raised even in this children’s bible study: What's in the bible - how God is represented

I am afraid this gets into some pretty heavy theology:

What was that debate all about? The Arians denied the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Arius asked the question, "What do we mean by 'father' and 'son'?" I explained to the class that I have a son called Alan. There was a time when I was not a father. Then my wife conceived and Alan was born. I became a father. Likewise, there was a time when my son was not. He came into existence when my wife conceived and he was born. If you define "father" and "son" in those biological, sexual terms and then project them onto God, as Arius did, then you will argue quite consistently that there was a time when God was not Father. He only became Father when he created the Son. Likewise, there was a time when the Son was not. He only came into existence when God created him. So Arius denied the doctrine of the Trinity and, in fact, rarely spoke of God as Father. Likewise, he argued that the Son of God was a creature, so denying the deity of Christ. The Nicene Fathers replied, "That is not what we mean by Father and Son. He is eternally Father, eternally begetting and the Son is eternally the Son, eternally begotten, not made" [see John 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."  John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."] - as in the words of the Nicene Creed. Athanasius said to Arius, "You are a mythologizer (mythologein), projecting your own images on to God. We do not engage in mythology, but in theology (theologein)."

What did Athanasius understand the task of theology to be? In Matthew 23:8, Jesus is recorded as saying to the disciples. "Do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.... The greatest among you will be your servant." What is our Lord saying? He is recognizing that the word "father" is a patriarchal, sexist one in a culture where men dominate women and often use them simply as servants or sex objects. Jesus is saying that God is not like that! He is evacuating the word of all male, sexist, patriarchal connotations in calling God "Father." He says elsewhere: "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9). "All things have been committed to me by my Father." "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). Jesus alone truly knows the Father, and his mission from the Father is to make the Father known [John 1:18, John 14:7-11, John 14:31, John 17:26]. He does so by taking the form of a servant [Phillippians 2:5-8] and by living a life of loving obedience, going to the cross. Fatherhood is then defined for us by Jesus on the cross. We are not thrown back on ourselves to project our biological, sexist images of "father" onto God - to "mythologize." The Christian church has never simply called God "Father," but always "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," [Ephesians 1:3] and he is "the Father from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name" (Eph 3: 14ff.). In theology our knowledge of God as Father is derived from his self-revelation in Jesus Christ.  [Matthew 11:27, John 17:26, John 14:31] The danger of certain extreme liberal feminists is that they evacuate the word "Father" of all the content Jesus has put into it and then want to dismiss the word as sexist and patriarchal - in effect accusing Jesus of being a mythologizer. To return to the question in class, I then said that, if they accused me of being sexist in talking about the Trinity were they not accusing me of being an Arian? But perhaps they were the Arians if they insisted that the word is a patriarchal, biological, sexist one. Far from being sexist, the doctrine of the Trinity is the opposite. The ancient church hammered out the doctrine, as in the Nicene Creed, against any sexist notions. They were clear that there is no gender in God; but, in revealing himself, God has commandeered human language and named himself as "Father." It is a name, not just a human metaphor and certainly not one we project on to God. But as such it has to be interpreted analogically in comparing it and contrasting it with human fatherhood. And doing so in the light of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. This is the task of theology.

The Nicene debate seems to me to be of fundamental importance today in the light of accusations that talk of God as Father. Son and Holy Spirit is sexist, with male images projected onto God by a male-dominated, sexist culture. The contention. Therefore, is that we need new images of God, for example, female images. This was the basic theme of the Minneapolis Conference on "Re-Imagining God, Community and the Church," and behind the proposal that Sophia (the Greek feminine word for wisdom) be used to describe the object of our worship, and prayers be offered to her as our Mother.

The presupposition behind this extreme liberal approach is that God is unknown [contrary to Hebrews 1:1-3, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1st Corinthians 2:10, etc.]. We must explore the depths of our own experience and spirituality to find images and language with which to describe God or to account for moral and religious experience. This was the basic presupposition of Arius in the ancient world, and of Immanuel Kant and his successors today from Schleiermacher to Bultmann and to the antirealism of Don Cupitt.

…

Behind this contemporary demand by many feminists for new images of God, there is a very genuine legitimate protest and a cry for justice. There is the fact that for centuries - from the very beginning? - The church has been largely male-dominated, patriarchal, and hierarchical. Women have been excluded from the ordained ministry and from holding certain offices. The false argument has been used that only a man can represent a male Jesus. But this portrays an inadequate understanding of the incarnation. The Son of God, in assuming our humanity, became a man, not to sanctify maleness, but our common humanity so that, be we men or women, we can see the dignity and beauty of our humanity sanctified in him.

…

It seems to me that the right approach for the church to adopt in seeking women’s liberation is to take a stand on the incarnation. To hold out Jesus Christ to the world is not only to hold out personal salvation and eternal life in our evangelism, but it is also to give all people their humanity. Whatever else the incarnation means, it is that all people and all races - Jew or Gentile, black or white, male or female - are meant to see their humanity assumed by Christ, sanctified by his life in the Spirit of unbroken communion with the Father, by his death and resurrection, offered to the Father "without spot or wrinkle," and given back to them in the mission of the church. There should be no divorce between evangelism and humanisation in the church's witness to Jesus Christ. Women are meant to find in Christ and receive from the church the all dignity and beauty of their humanity, equally with men. Tragically the church has been so often "moulded," not by Jesus Christ, but by the patterns of a patriarchal culture.

Likewise, we are meant to interpret our humanity, our male-female relations, in the light of the Trinity. God is love. Love always implies communion between persons, and that is what we see supremely in God. The Father loves the Son in the communion of the Spirit. The Son loves the Father in the communion of the Spirit in their continuing mutual "indwelling" (perichoresis was the Greek word used by the fathers of the church). The Spirit is the bond of communion between the Father and the Son and between God and ourselves. The Spirit is God giving God's self in love. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are equally God (autotheoi). But there is differentiation within God - personal distinctions in the Godhead. There is unity, diversity and perfect harmony. It is this triune God who has being-in-communion, in love. Who has created us as male and female in that image to be "co-lovers" (condiligentes in Duns Scotus's expressive word⁴), to share in the triune love and to love one another in perichoretic unity. "Then God said, 'let us make man in our image, in our likeness.'. . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" (Gen 1:26-27). These purposes of God in creation find their fulfilment in redemption. Therefore, to understand what it means to be in the image of God, one must look at Christ and the new creation in him. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). This does not mean that it does not matter, therefore, whether we are male or female. We do not become unisex. … There is unity, diversity and harmony, which should be reflected in the church. The gospel does not eliminate our gender identity. But as men and women we find our masculine and feminine identity and fulfilment in Christ, our true being in mutual communion.

I could quote further, but I think that is enough to get the general meaning across.

A further complication is that Ancient, Old Testament Hebrew had strictly only two genders: male and female (no neuter). Masculine was used by default in Old Testament Hebrew when referring to mixed groups or unknown persons.  New Testament Greek has three Genders, male, female and neuter.  By default, in Ancient Greek, the masculine gender is generally used as the default grammatical gender for mixed groups, unknown persons, or when representing a general, abstract concept, acting as the "unmarked" category; thus neuter is not used as often as you would expect. This may affect the use of gendered language in these contexts.

No one (to my knowledge) debates the point when the Apostle Paul talks about being "strengthened through His Spirit in your inner man" that Paul is referring to both men and women who he want to be strengthened in their 'inner being', but technically Paul did use the masculine gender in the original Greek.  It sounds inappropriate when people pray, "We ask that old Mrs. Mildred be strengthened in her inner man" because the language Paul used does not map well to modern English.

I do not think presenting Alsan as ‘female’ would be terrible theologically, insofar as the triune God is not specifically male.

I know that theologians hate to refer to the Holy Spirit as “it” – because it is an impersonal term.  For this reason, the Holy Spirit is referred to as “He”, but that is not to affirm any male-ness on the behalf of the Holy Spirit.  I avoid using terms like “it” for any member of the trinity for the same reason.

I think C.S. Lewis is presenting a “supposal”, where just as Jesus became a human being in our world, so to, he became a part of the creation in Narnia also.  C. S. Lewis, once wrote:

Since Narnia is a world of Talking Beasts, I thought He would become a Talking Beast there, as He became a man here.

I think this is where the offence is really taken, because Jesus Christ was historically male and C. S. Lewis pictured an alternate incarnation of him as male lion also.  I do not know of any great theological reason why Jesus needed to be male.  You could perhaps argue that C. S. Lewis could have pictured him as female, but he did not.  If it makes no difference whether Aslan is male or female, then there is no reason to gender-swap him as there is no reason why he should not remain male.

@narnian78 said it well in their post:

Posted by: @narnian78

I can’t think of any reason why Aslan should be of a different gender than Jesus in the Bible.

Posted by: @col-klink

His tendency is to give ultimatums to human beings who displease Him and wipe them out or otherwise severely punish them if they won't comply.

God is presented in the bible as being long-suffering (I.e. like a loving parent who is patient with their children, but who does eventually need to discipline them).  There are cases where God says he is going to wait 400 years before he punishes the evil the Canaanites are doing (Genesis 15:16).  The hint in God waiting so long is that he wants to give them a chance to change their minds before he punishes them.

Likewise, both Israel and Judah constantly turn away from God in the Old Testament.  God sends many prophets, warning them that if they do not stop doing evil, that he will need to punish them by sending them into exile.  Several 100s of years pass before he says, “enough” and sends them into exile.

God sends Jonah to Ninevah to warn the people that if they do not stop doing wrong, that he will wipe them out in 40 days (the Hebrew is a bit of a play on words, as the phrase could mean ‘overturn your city’ as in wipe it out, or ‘turn your city upside down’ – which would indicate that it would be unrecognisable, which is in fact what happens as the people repent and the city no longer looks as it did).  In giving them 40 days, God is hinting that they have time to stop.

This is pretty consistent throughout the Old Testament.  I do not think it is as simple as God just ‘gives ultimatums to human beings who displease him’.

In my opinion it would not be sound from a theological point of view, to portray Aslan as a female seeing as Aslan is a supposal of Jesus Christ in another world.  There are several reasons why I come to this conclusion:

The first being the command Jesus gave at his ascension:

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 

In none of these names/titles is any of the three persons of God referred to with a female title or name.  The Father & Son titles/names are clearly masculine, admittedly there is no gender description with the third name/title "Holy Ghost"

Second thought on this matter, which I suppose is more relevant to the Emperor-Over-The-Sea, but Jesus when referring to God in heaven, consistently referred to Him as "Father" - never once does He refer to him as "Mother"

Third, Jesus appears to refer to Himself by the same name as one of the most significant names of the Father:

Exo 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 

Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 

Joh 18:3  Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 
Joh 18:4  Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 
Joh 18:5  They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 
Joh 18:6  As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 
Joh 18:7  Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 
Joh 18:8  Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 

The name "I am" being Yahweh.  Jesus also claims to be "in the Father" and claims "the Father [is] in me".

Also key to my reasoning are the names and titles attributed to Jesus in Isaiah 9

Isa 9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 

Again - these names are in the masculine.  They had the words to say Mother or Princess, but they did not use them.

I think the argument that this was done and written this way due to the Bible being written in a patriarchal era, whilst having some merit, I believe is challengeable.

I also don't think it was written this way due to God suggesting, or anyone else implying that the male gender is any better than the female gender.  After all, Jesus does ascribe to himself the description of being a mother hen. Matt 23:37 and Luke 13:34.  Also Gen 1:26-27 clearly says God created man (or mankind) in His image - male and female, if he were biased or something surely he would have left it at just making men - although that would be a concerning world, without the balance of both male & female as He created.

So yes, I do think it's significant that the Father & the Son are both presented with male names and titles.  I don't think He is limited to the male gender because clearly females are created after His image also, but He is consistently given male names and titles in the Old and New Testaments and given many male attributes, also.

Therefore, in my opinion, seeing as Aslan is supposed to be Jesus in Narnia, to present Him as a female would not be theologically sound.

I don’t believe it’ll be a female Lion even If voiced by Meryl Streep.

Posted by: @davidd

I do not think it is as simple as God just ‘gives ultimatums to human beings who displease him’.

Well, I guess I was responding to the argument I've heard (not really on this site; elsewhere) that God only identifies as male in the Bible because that's the only way the original culture would see Him. That's just not the picture of God I get from the Bible. The only precedent I can see is when in the New Testament, Jesus says God only allowed divorce because people's hearts were hard. And that begs the question of why Jesus didn't tell people that it was OK to use feminine pronouns for God. Seems like if the Christian God wanted people to do so, that would have been the ideal time to tell them. 

I doubt I'm saying anything very original or earth-shattering here, but whether or not something — anything — is "theologically sound" depends entirely on what kind of theological perspective someone is coming from. And that is going to be different even between different types of Christians — theologically conservative, theologically liberal, and those in between — let alone if someone dealing with this question is religious but not Christian, or not religious at all.

C.S. Lewis himself was a relatively (not ultra) conservative Anglican. He was definitely quite traditionalist in his views on male vs female roles, in human life in general as well as in spiritual matters. (He was utterly opposed to the idea of female clergy in the Church of England, when this was suggested during his lifetime. It did come about eventually, but many years after his death.) There is no conceivable way that he would have thought it appropriate to represent Jesus, the Son of God, with a female character.

So, no, a female Aslan would absolutely not be "theologically sound" from C.S. Lewis's own perspective. I would think that any film-maker (or anyone else adapting the Chronicles of Narnia in some way) who genuinely wanted to honour Lewis's ideas and vision would have to stand on that basis. It's still very unclear whether or not Greta Gerwig is doing this. (She's always spoken very respectfully of Lewis himself, but from the little we know for sure about her Narnia movie, it is not a close adaptation of the original book — even without it being confirmed that Meryl Streep's role will be as the voice of Aslan.)

I do remember, at the time the Meryl Streep rumour originally broke, reading a commentator somewhere online (I forget who or where) who suggested that because Lewis was already doing something radical and non-traditional by representing Jesus as a lion, it was therefore totally in the spirit of Lewis's writings to take that radicalness in a new direction and make Aslan female. I can only conclude that writer was living in a fantasy world. (And I don't mean Narnia. )

On the other hand — as that example shows — somebody coming from a less traditional theological perspective could argue that a female Aslan is "theologically sound". I myself belong to a church that has referred to God as Father-Mother since the late 19th century, and in which it's completely fine to use feminine pronouns for God (although that doesn't seem to have been common until fairly recently). Yes, it does derive from the declaration in Genesis 1:27 that both "male and female" are created in the image of God.

From that perspective, then — and I know I've said this before — I don't think I would be upset by a fantasy series (written or on screen) that was based on Christianity but used a female character as its Jesus-representation. I might not like it, if the plot and the characters and so on weren't very convincing, but theologically speaking, I probably wouldn't find it offensive!   (I say "probably wouldn't" because there might be other theological aspects of it that I didn't agree with, but the gender of the Christ-character wouldn't be a big deal.)

However, that's me speaking in general from a definitely non-traditional religious perspective. As a fan of Narnia, and one who deeply respects C.S. Lewis's ideas even where I don't agree with him, I still take the stance that a female Aslan is not theologically appropriate for an adaptation of Narnia.

And as I've also said before, I will still watch this upcoming movie at least once, regardless of the gender of Aslan, just so that I can judge it for myself. But if the Aslan in it doesn't feel like Aslan does in the books, I won't consider it a good adaptation and I most likely won't be watching it again.

@courtenay 

The Anglican Church is very similar to the Episcopal Church here in America.  I doubt if the Episcopals would approve of a female Aslan if they are as conservative as C. S. Lewis’s church in England. I have always belonged to the Christian Reformed denomination, which would also take a similar conservative view.  Having a female Aslan would be virtually the same as having a female Jesus, which would never gain approval in the theology of the Calvinist or other conservative denominations.  It is not according to the Bible.  And if C. S. Lewis were living today he would oppose that idea too.

Posted by: @narnian78

@courtenay 

The Anglican Church is very similar to the Episcopal Church here in America.

To be exact, the Episcopal Church in America is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as is the Church of England. But there's a lot of variety among Anglicans worldwide (including here in England), from so-conservative-they're-nearly-Catholic to so-liberal-they're-nearly-Quakers. I've known modern-day Anglicans who probably wouldn't be upset by a female Aslan, and also some who would find the whole concept as offensive as Lewis himself undoubtedly would have. 

@courtenay 

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn’t sure if the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church were the exact same denomination.

The college that I graduated from had a professor who taught that Jesus was a woman and actually showed her class a picture of a woman on a cross and she said, “That’s Christ”. That college is supported by the Reformed Church in America. So there are different views within the denomination. I don’t think it’s likely that you will find anyone within my own denomination (Christian Reformed) that will say that Jesus was a woman. They would agree with C. S. Lewis that Aslan should be male. It is a stricter and the only accurate interpretation of Scripture to say that Jesus was male, and as far as I’m concerned, a much better one.  🙂

Posted by: @narnian78

The college that I graduated from had a professor who taught that Jesus was a woman and actually showed her class a picture of a woman on a cross and she said, “ That’s Christ”.

Ah, well, now that's a very non-mainstream interpretation among Christians, for sure. Even we Christian Scientists don't go that far!!   (As in, we don't see Jesus as a woman. But then, we don't see him as God either.)

I do remember, way back when I was doing my religion studies major — and now I don't quite recall which class this was in, because I ended up doing bits of my degree across three different universities (long story)   — I did some assignments on women's roles in Christian history, and at one stage I came across a reference to a sect within early Christianity (as in, within the first few hundred years, before the Council of Nicaea) that adhered to all other then-mainstream Christian beliefs, but allowed women to be prophets and considered them equal to men. And according to one of the few records of this group that have survived, one of their female prophets purportedly had a vision of Christ coming to her in the form of a woman. But I cannot remember the name of that group or which book I got that information from (and if my essay in which I quoted it still exists, it'll be somewhere back at my parents' home in Australia!). And one of the issues with early "alternative" forms of Christianity is that most of the information we have about them comes from their detractors writing polemics against them, so we don't even necessarily know how accurate the descriptions of them are. But that one did stick in my head!

Somewhat more recently in history, there's the English female mystic Julian of Norwich, who as a religious recluse in the early 1400s, wrote of her series of visions (or "showings") that included her seeing God / Christ as our Mother as well as our Father. She isn't the only theologian to have made that connection, particularly between a woman giving birth — going through agonising pain to bring forth new life, out of love — and the sufferings of Jesus on the cross. (Come to that, Jesus himself uses the analogy of a woman suffering the pains of labour, but then forgetting her anguish in the joy of the child's birth, when he assures the disciples that their sorrow will likewise be turned into joy — John 16:21. Which is not the same as him personally being a woman, of course, but it's interesting that that's the metaphor he reached for.)

And there is, again, the argument that if Christ could take the form of a man in our world, and the form of a lion in Narnia, who is to say that the same Saviour couldn't also choose to take the form of a woman? But these are all theoretical conjectures, and some people will find them "theologically sound", and some will find them absolutely wrong and possibly outright offensive. As I keep saying, it depends on one's preferred theology.

But none of this changes the fact that C.S. Lewis — even though I gather he was a fan of Julian of Norwich! — definitely WOULDN'T have considered a female Aslan to be theologically sound. Which is why I also keep saying, although I would be open to considering a female representation of Christ in some other fantasy story, I do not think it would be the right thing at all for an adaptation of Narnia.

@courtenay I've just got to know... where does Jesus not being God come from? I've of course heard of that, but can find no support in scripture, and believe the statement to actually be heretical. In John 20:28, Thomas the apostle addresses Jesus as: "My Lord, and my God..." and in Titus 2:13, Paul commends his readers how to live saying they are to be , "... waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." I can see no room for an argument which considers Jesus not God. Here's another, from Peter 1:1, "... To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Additionally, the virgin birth is evidence of God's fatherhood. And of course, the statement raises the question: how could Jesus have been a perfect man if he was not also God? Admittedly, I am swarming you with verses, but am curious how those who believe Jesus is not God might respond as I rarely get the opportunity to ask!

Posted by: @lamp-lighter

@courtenay I've just got to know... where does Jesus not being God come from? I've of course heard of that, but can find no support in scripture, and believe the statement to actually be heretical.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into a religious debate in public, as that's not what this forum is for (and I'd prefer not to debate in private, either).

Interesting, though, that you say you can "find no support in scripture" for it. I find far more support in scripture (including throughout the New Testament) for the position that Jesus is not God than for the position that he is God.

I have a feeling — and I would say this as much for myself as for other Christians — that quite often, what we think of as "supported in scripture" is actually "supported by my particular denomination's selective interpretation of particular scriptural texts". The Bible, as a whole, is a vast collection of writings from a large number of different authors (some of whose identities can't be proved for certain), written at different times over many centuries, and there are major contradictions if we try to take every word of it as absolutely literally factual. Every theology and every denomination has to pick and choose which parts of scripture to take literally and which to explain in some different way. It's one of the reasons why there's so much diversity of theological opinion among Christians worldwide, and indeed among Jews as well.

If you do want to explore specific Biblical evidence as to Jesus not being God (including analyses of the texts commonly taken as evidence of him being God), there's a site called "Biblical Unitarian" that has a lot of good resources. I will say straight out that it has no connection with my own denomination and I don't agree with all of the theological arguments in some of the articles there, but it's at least helpful in showing the breadth and depth of scriptural support for non-Trinitarian Christianity in general.

It's also worth being aware that these arguments have in fact been going on since the very beginnings of Christianity, not merely in recent times. One of the best books I've ever read on the subject, while researching it for ecumenical and interfaith work some time ago, was When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome, by Richard E. Rubenstein (Mariner Books, 2000). It takes a purely historical perspective rather than a doctrinal one, and it is a real eye-opener, especially as to just how much diversity and disagreement — and outright violence — there was between different Christian factions in the first few centuries after Jesus, and how much of it was more about securing political advantage and power than anything else. (Like so much of human history!)

And it's pretty much for that reason that I don't want to get into endless back and forth arguments about who is right and who is wrong and who is a "real" Christian or who isn't. I'm deeply happy with and fulfilled by my own faith and my own relationship with the God I know and love from long experience, and I know many others here feel the same way about their own faith and their own relationship with God. And I'm also aware there are others on NarniaWeb who are not religious, or at least don't count themselves as Christians, and I'm just glad there's room for all of us here. So if it's OK, I'd prefer to leave it at that.