Could the ναῦς of Marcion Have Been Deliberately Confused with the ναός of Marcion?

I am trying to comprehend all the aspects of the Jewish temple that I allege once existed on a large rock, just to the east of the main city of Alexandria. I have always been dissatisfied with the identification of the heretic 'Marcion of Pontus' as actually being from the Roman province of Pontus, on the shore of the Black Sea.

I have always thought that the name 'Marcion' was developed from the name Mark, either as an Aramaic back formation of 'those of Mark' (Marqiyone) or from the Greek 'little Mark' - i.e. the figure at the heart of the Alexandrian mysteries (cf. Passio Petri Sancti).

So how do we explain the 'Pontus' reference?

In Greek mythology, Πόντος i.e. the "sea" was an ancient, pre-Olympian sea-god, one of the protogenoi, the "first-born". Pontos was the son of Gaia, the Earth. Hesiod says that Gaia brought forth Pontos out of herself, without coupling. For Hesiod, Pontos seems little more than a personification of the sea, ho pontos, "the Road", by which Hellenes signified the Mediterranean Sea.

So I hope some of you can see that I am getting back to the idea of the Jewish temple standing on a rock by the sea which - I believe - had been rededicated as a Christian Church after 70 CE.

If you look carefully at Tertullian's references and you actually notice that he is not thinking 'Pontus' but 'Pontos' the ancient Greek sea god of the same name. Look at the following:

You are stuck, Marcion, in the midst of the swell of your own Pontus [Tertullian, AM i.9]

In what year of the elder Antoninus the pestilential breeze of Marcion's salvation, whose opinion this was, breathed out from his own Pontus [ibid i.19]

whether Christ said or did not say, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it, to no purpose has Pontus raged and stormed to discount that saying. If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, even so the law has fulfilled the gospel. Well is it again that at the end he holds out the threat of Christ's judgement-seat [ibid v.15]

Now Origen already tells us of a Marcionite understanding in Alexandria that Marcion sat in the throne to Jesus' right. Is it possible that Tertullian's source is connecting Marcion with the 'dashing of the waves' that continues on the shores of eastern Alexandria?

And then, if I could allow my speculation to run wild for a moment, is it possible that Tertullian's many references to Marcion's ναῦς (ship) was a corruption - deliberate or otherwise - of Marcion's ναός (temple) on the Mediterranean? And is it possible that the references to Marcion as shipowner, ναύκληρος, was also a development from Marcion as the owner of the aforementioned temple?

Well it needs more work but here are some citations to reference while we think about it:

This man of Pontus presents us with two gods, as it were the two clashing rocks on which he suffers shipwreck: the one the Creator, whom he cannot deny, which is our God: the other,
whom he cannot prove, a god of his own. [AM i.2]

Marcion we know for a ship-master, not a king or an emperor.[AM i.18]

It can have been no Rhodian law, but a Pontic one, which assured this shipmaster that the Jews were incapable of making a mistake respecting their Christ; although, even if nothing of this sort were found to have been spoken in prophecies against them, human nature alone and by itself, wide open to deception, might have persuaded him that the Jews could have made a mistake, being men, and that it would be wrong to use as a precedent the judgement of persons who had likely enough been mistaken [AM iii.6]

because set by the Father for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. Made by him a little lower than the angels declaring himself a worm and no man, the scorn of man and the outcast of the people. These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world [AM iii.7]

hereupon they left their boats and followed him, with understanding of one who had begun to do in fact what he had said in words. It is quite another thing if he made a pretence of choosing them from the Association of Shipmasters, because he was sometime going to have as his apostle Marcion the navigator. [AM iv.9]

So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any
smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill
of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? [v.1]