Probably the text above is a paraphrase from this:
What then say the heretics? See, say they, He did not become man. The Marcionites, I mean. But why? He was made in the likeness of man. But how can one be made in the likeness of men? By putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, and no longer the likeness of a man, for the likeness of a man is another man.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
The paraphrase is gained implicitly also from this text:
Today, He who Is is born, and He who Ιs becomes what He was not. For being God, He becomes human, though He did not cease from being God. For He hasn’t become human by separating[8] from His divinity,[9] nor again has He become God by advancing[10] from a human.
Jesus not being a man (in your text) and Jesus not existing (in your clickbait title) are two very different things. Lots of things exist, or are at least thought to exist, which are not men.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:38 pm
Jesus not being a man (in your text) and Jesus not existing (in your clickbait title) are two very different things. Lots of things exist, or are at least thought to exist, which are not men.
but Chrysostom's apology seems to confuse/identify deliberately the two things:
The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility
(homily 7)
The accusation is that the marcionites believed in a "phantom", i.e. a not-existing being.
ETA: "to see a phantom" was the equivalent old expression to our modern expression "to have a hallucination".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:38 pm
Jesus not being a man (in your text) and Jesus not existing (in your clickbait title) are two very different things. Lots of things exist, or are at least thought to exist, which are not men.
but Chrysostom's apology seems to confuse/identify deliberately the two things:
The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility
(homily 7)
The accusation is that the marcionites believed in a "phantom", i.e. a not-existing being.
ETA: "to see a phantom" was the equivalent old expression to our modern expression "to have a hallucination".
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:19 pm
There are three separate notions:
Jesus appeared, and was a man.
Jesus appeared, and was a phantom.
Jesus did not appear at all.
You are confusing #2 with #3.
Not only me, but Chrysostom is using that confusion as reductio ad absurdum of the marcionite belief.
For him, #2 implies #3.
For marcionites, not.
No, Chrysostom is presuming #2, that a phantom appeared and deluded people (in his interpretation of the Marcionite view). #3 is nowhere in sight, except in your imagination.