And yet, when Christ stood before Pilate, a man and a God in fact stood before him. And Pilate spoke truly when he said, "Ecce homo", which is correctly translated, "Behold the Man."

Although some, in a false spirit of equality, may be tempted to translate the Creed, "for us humans...became human," this seems to be too abstract and far less incarnational--ie, Christ had real flesh and real bones--indeed he was a truly a man. And again, earlier in the Creed the believer professes his belief in the "Son of God." Man cannot ignore, therefore, that the Word became flesh as a male, as the son of Mary and the Son of God. He was a man and yet in Him he encompasses all mankind, just like the first man, from whom all mankind, including Eve, came forth.

It certainly cannot be said that the Fathers who drafted the Creed thought of Christ as if in some scifi movie observing a strange looking creature and exclaiming, "Look, it's human!" No doubt what is clear is that Christ was a real man, "the Son of Man," not the "Son of Human". As Liturgicam Authenticam reminds us,



The word, "human," does not convey the same interplay between the individual and the universal, because it refers too abstractly to the universal without the concrete meaning conveyed by the term "man".

In reading another current thread related to this one, I referred back here and realized I neglected (forgot) to post the source that I had in mind but couldn't place. The language I recalled in part is found in the Symbol of Chalcedon, link. Striking, in particular, is the parallel phrasing using homoousios (but see the interpretation in the note which, however, is not part of the text of the Symbol itself):

As the new thread shows ( link ) there can still be questions about what is conveyed in the English by "human being".