Thank you for your post all I'm saying is the first and last Adam would be created in the same way the last Adam Jesus Christ was created he being the head his body comprised of a whole multitude of believers which he would present to the Father on his return.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but there are problems with the specific way in which you expressed it.
It is the case that through the transgression of Adam, humanity became corrupt and mortal, and through the salvific work of Christ on the Cross, who, to quote St. Athanasius, became man so that we could become god, that is to say, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature, for He trampled down death by death, and on those in the tombs bestows life at the Eschaton, when we will be raised incorruptible before the Last Judgement.
It is also the case that the Church is the mystical body of Christ.
However, the fall of Adam caused us to become mortal and sinful through inheritance - this understanding of original sin as ancestral sin was explained very well by St. John Cassian, a contemporary of St. Augustine whose anti-Pelagian exposition on hamartiology was strongly preferred by the early church, even the Western church, with St. Augustine venerated for other reasons (his piety, humility and his work The City of God which reassured the people of Rome about the meaning of their lives even as the Western Roman Empire collapsed, causing them to realize an important lesson that St. Solomon the Royal Prophet also teaches us in Ecclesiastes, and that Christ teaches us in the Gospels, about the importance of treasure in heaven vs. spiritual treasure.
Conversely, our salvation through Jesus Christ does involve our membership in the Church, which is the mystical Body of Christ, but that does not mean that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is a multi-personal compound entity into which each Christian is somehow joined, nor does it mean Adam was that (for if Adam was that, Adam would not be human, and there is no way that he would be able to cause the spread of the disease of sin and death to his offspring). Likewise, if Christ were created of a whole multitude He would be neither human nor God, and thus unable to save us.
Let us pause to remember, according to the Nicene Creed / CF Statement of Faith, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, begotten of the Father before all ages, who put on our created human nature by means of his miraculous conception through the actions of God the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to John 1:1-18, He is God, the Incarnate Word of God, through whom the Father is revealed. Thus, while He put on our created humanity in order to restore and glorify it, uniting it in one hypostasis with HIs divinity, He remains fully God, an uncreated person, coequal to and coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He put on our humanity, uniting it with His divinity without change, confusion, separation or division (these four key words are the basis of Christological orthodoxy that underlines the faith of the Chalcedonian churches, the Oriental Orthodox or miaphysite churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East*).
If Christ is not fully human, and not fully divine, He would not be in a position to save it, because His salvation of us on the Cross involved remaking us in His image, as the Son of Man, in whom the invisible God dwells bodily, to quote the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John.
Through His incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, passion, resurrection and ascension, Christ our True God put on our humanity and glorified it.
We become mystically united with Him by partaking of His body and blood in the Eucharist - this is what St. Paul meant, if we refer the sections of 1 Corinthians and elsewhere where He describes the Church as the Body of Christ with 1 Corinthians 11 where he describes the institution of Holy Communion in the Cenacle at the Last Supper, in which we participate Eucharistically through the sacrament of Holy Communion (and we see an early example of this in the ending of the Gospel according to Luke, where our Risen Lord became known to the Apostles in the breaking of bread).
Thus, it is incorrect to say that either Adam or Jesus Christ was created as a multi-personal being, and it is even more incorrect to say that Jesus Christ was created at all, for althoug He put on our created nature, He is an uncreated person.
Nestorius tried to argue that there was a difference between the uncreated Christ and the man Jesus, that they were two persons united by a single will (and he did this in order to come up with a theological rationale for suppressing the use of the term “Theotokos” in the Patriarchate of Constantinople), but this clearly contradicts the Nicene Creed which speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ and not two, and interestingly enough it was later discerned from Scripture at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod that our Lord has a human will and a divine will, in response to the heresy of Monothelitism (which itself was in many respects a sort of neo-Apollinarianism; Apollinarius was a fourth century heretic who taught falsely that our Lord had a human body with a divine soul, which is a confusion of His humanity and divinity, rather, it is more accurate to say that He is fully man and fully God, without change, confusion, separation or division, having united humanity hypostatically with his uncreated divinity, thus becoming fully human, (arguably the prototypical human, for on the Cross He recreated us in His image) while remaining fully God.
I hope this helps clarify this point, because what you said was very close to being correct, and indeed much closer than the doctrine of many members who seem to gloss over St. Paul’s description of the Church as the Body of Christ.
*In the case of the Church of the East, this happened, after it realized, during the reign of Mar Babai the Great in the early 7th century that the Nestorian Christology promoted within it by Bar Sauma of Nisibis (the city to which those theologians from Antioch who were allied to Nestorius emigrated after the Council of Ephesus anathematized Nestorianism in 433 AD) who had in the previous century wrested control of the Church of the East uncanonically with the help of the Sassanian Persian king from the legitimate Catholicos, that Nestorianism is inherently flawed, thus Mar Babai the Great essentially translated Chalcedonian Christology into Syriac (there are some differences with regards to terminology that cause some people to accuse the Church of the East of still being Nestorian, but since the Church of the East stresses the unity of Christ in one person, and uses the same four words as the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians to describe the relationship of His humanity and divinity - without change, confusion, separation or division, it is clear that it is not, and this point was made very clear about a thousand years ago, give or take 200 years, I can’t remember off the top of my head, Mar Gregory bar Hebraeus, a Syriac Orthodox Maphrian (Archbishop with vice-Patriarchal duties in charge of the Eastern half of the Syriac Orthodox church), who sought to foster strong relations with the Church of the East and desired the same happen with the Western half of the church in its relationship with the Antiochian Orthodox (which did eventually happen, in both cases, to the extent that St. Gregory bar Hebraeus when he reposed while travelling from Tikrit back to his monastery in the hills above Mosul, which miraculously survived the ISIS occupation of that city and is still extant, the Monastery of St. Matthew, his funeral was attended by the Patriarch of the Church of the East and 4,000 Assyrian laity).