@kj7rrv I think this is one of the places where it becomes clear that the Chronicles of Narnia are not allegory and are also not intended to be a sort of "Christian Theology 101" class in children's book form.

Lewis wasn't attempting to make every single aspect of the Narnia stories correspond directly with something from the Bible, or from Christian theology or the history of Christianity. Trying to force the books to fit a consistent theological plan just does not work.

Aslan's sacrifice of his life to save Edmund (and his resurrection afterwards!) is certainly meant to remind readers of Jesus' death and resurrection, and the fact that Aslan does this selflessly for the sake of one person is meant to make us think of the one who laid down his life in our world for the sake of every individual, including you and me. But there's not a direct one-to-one correspondence in terms of theology and doctrine. We indeed aren't told that Aslan's sacrifice is for the atonement of all Narnians' sins — although it could fairly be said that he saved them all from the White Witch by destroying her. There's no explanation either of what "Death itself would start working backwards" means, beyond the fact that Aslan himself has come back to life.

And then in The Magician's Nephew, which was written a few years later as the prequel and has some major and irreconciliable inconsistencies with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, we likewise don't have direct parallels with the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve and Satan and the original sin and so on. Hints and allusions, perhaps, but they're general and don't ever correspond exactly, and they're not supposed to.

Basically, Lewis didn't plan out any sort of theology of Narnia and write the books to fit that plan (or any other kind of plan, despite what some commentators have tried to read into the series) — so there is really no point in reading the books with the thought of figuring out the Narnian equivalents of any points of Christian doctrine. It's honestly better just to read them and enjoy them for what they are.

CS Lewis never intended Narnia to be an allegory, but there are some Christian elements.

Yes, Aslan dying on the Stone Table and coming back to life is supposed to remind us of Jesus's death and resurrection. Even the Stone Table breaking in two kind of reminds you of how the temple curtain was torn in two when Jesus was on the cross. But that's not even direct or is it even supposed to be.

CS Lewis never intended Narnia to be an allegory or was ever meant to be. But there are some Christian elements, and even non-Christians enjoy the series.

Yeah, trying to map every single aspect of Scripture to Narnia (which is what I think would need to happen for Narnia to technically be an allegory) is impossible - for instance, there's the Emperor Beyond the Sea and there's Aslan, but there's no third part of the Trinity, no Holy Spirit counterpart.  On the opposite side, there's not really an Antichrist counterpart.  Yeah there's Puzzle, but he was about as close to innocent as possible for such a role (and Shift, if anything, was more like the false prophet).  Also, Narnia doesn't have any obvious angel counterparts; there are nymphs and dryads and stuff, which are spirits, but they're not messengers of Aslan and they're not from Aslan's Country.  And in our world, the devil won't meet his end until our equivalent of the Last Battle, vs. the White Witch who was out after the first book.  I could go on and on and on.

I think though that if we're not talking about allegory, and we're really just asking the question, then my answer would be "maybe" (lol).  Just considering the facts...

• No, I don't think sin entered the world through Digory.  When Aslan created the talking beasts, they had no knowledge of good and evil ("a Neevil?  What's that?").  On the other hand, we don't really see any talking beasts do anything evil (except the wolves) until the Last Battle.  And I mean shoot, even the wolves probably thought they were being loyal to Narnia's new queen.  Dogs are a wonderful object lesson on loyalty, so I don't know if even their actions were truly evil or not.  Not to mention, it seems Narnia just always had good creatures and evil creatures; only in the Walden version do we ever see a Minotaur do something good.    Of course, sin is more than just our limited human understanding of evil, so the whole sin thing is a maybe and IMO leans much more strongly toward "no".
• But yes, I do think Aslan's death and resurrection brought life to the Narnians. Setting aside the sin question for a moment, look at what happens after Aslan comes back to life: creatures who were turned to stone started coming back to life too.  Here's what gets me about this: So remember the part when someone uses Aslan's name, and the Witch threatens to insta-kill the next person who mentioned it?  That line scared the you-know-what out of me as a kid!  "Can she do that?  How?  Her knife?  Some dark magic we haven't seen yet?"  Thankfully, we never had to find out!  But now as an adult, I expect she just equated turned to stone = death.  Even Edmund, when he saw her turn that Christmas party to stone, imagined moss growing over them and breaking them up and stuff.  But after Aslan comes back to life, so do his people.  Not allegory, but certainly some wonderful, powerful, meaningful and beautiful symbolism in there.

But, one fan's opinion.  You ask for two cents, and sometimes you come back with a buck fifty.  😆