AM 4:20 - One thing alone (Marcion) can get you out of these straits—if you are bold enough either to give your god, the father of Christ, the name of Man, which is what Valentinus did with the aeon,1 or else to deny that the virgin is human, which is a thing not even Valentinus has done.
Unum potest angustiis tuis subvenire, si audeas aut deum tuum patrem Christi Hominem quoque cognominare, quod de aeone fecit Valentinus, aut virginem hominem negare, quod nec Valentinus quidem fecit.
And then it goes on:
Next, what if in Daniel Christ is dignified with this actual title, Son of man ? Is not this good enough proof that Christ is the subject of prophecy? For when he calls himself by that title which was in prophecy applied to the Christ of the Creator, without question he offers himself for recognition as that one to whom the prophecy applied. Joint possession of names, perhaps, can be regarded as having no special significance—though even so I maintain that persons possessed of opposite characteristics had no right to be called either Christ or IC (nec Christum nec Iesum vocari). But a title, such as 'Son of man', arises from attendant circumstances, and to that extent it is not easy for it to have any pertinence beyond the possession of the same name. Arising from attendant circumstances, it is applicable to one person alone, especially when there is no recurrence of the same cause for which it could become a joint possession. So then if Marcion's Christ too were reported to be of birth man (ex homine), in that case he also would be eligible for joint possession of the title, and there would be two sons of man, as there would be two named Christ and IC ( et essent duo filii hominis, sicut et duo Christi et duo Iesus). Therefore since this title belongs to that one alone to whom it has reason to apply, if it is also claimed for another, one in whom there is joint possession of the name though not of the title, the joint possession of the name too falls under suspicion in the case of the one for whom without good reason is claimed joint possession of the title. So it follows that we must take it to be one and the same Person whom we believe more capable of possessing both the name and the title, to the exclusion of the other who, having no good reason for it, is not in joint possession of the title. Nor can anyone be found more capable of possessing both than he who first came into possession of the name of Christ and the title Son of man, namely the Creator's IC ( Iesus scilicet creatoris). He it was whom the Babylonian king saw in the furnace, a fourth along with his martyrs, in form like a son
of man. He was also revealed expressly to Daniel himself as the Son of man coming as judge with the clouds of heaven, as scripture also shows him to be. I have affirmed that this could be enough about the names the prophets give in reference to the Son of man. But scripture provides me with still more, by our Lord's own interpretation. When the Jews were taking account only of his manhood (solummodo hominem), not yet aware that he was also God, as being also God's Son, and were (as might be expected) arguing that a man cannot forgive sins (non posse hominem delicta dimittere), but only God can, how is it that the answer he gave them concerning man (homine), that he has power to forgive sins—when by using the expression 'Son of man' he implied 'man' as well—was not in terms of their objection (quando et filium hominis nominans hominem nominaret)? Was it not that it was his wish by this title Son of man from the book of Daniel to turn their complaint back upon them in such form as to prove that he who was forgiving sins was both God and Man (ostenderet deum et hominem)— that one and only Son of man in terms of Daniel's prophecy, who had obtained power to judge, and by it of course the power to forgive sins (for he who judges also acquits)—and so after that cause of offence had been dispersed by his citation of scripture, they might the more readily recognize from that very act of forgiving sins that he and no other was the Son of man? Actually, he had never before professed himself the Son of man, but on this occasion first on which he first forgave sins—that is, on which he first exercised judgement, by acquittal. On this subject take
note of what all the arguments amount to which our adversaries allege. They cannot avoid arriving at such a pitch of madness as to insist <that Christ is> the Son of man, so as not to make him a liar, yet to deny that he is of human birth, to escape admitting that he is the Virgin's son. But if both divine authority, and the facts of nature, and common logic, do not admit of this heretical idiocy, we have even here occasion to insist, in the sharpest
possible terms, on the reality of <Christ's> body, in opposition to Marcion's phantasms. If, being the Son of man, he is of human birth, there is body derived from body. Evidently you could more easily discover a man born without heart or brains, like Marcion, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. Go and search then for the heart, or the brains, of that man of Pontus.
My only solution to this strange and consistent distinction between the names is to assume 'Christ' (which for Marcion = god) and 'IC' (which = Man).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote