It is very common to make such allusions to fictional characters. People today often make similar allusions to sitcom characters.
I wanted to first respond to this comment you made in response to my quotes of Jesus, because it speaks to a problem that I am noticing several people seem to have on these threads. And that is their failure to leave out personal beliefs when "roll playing." For example if the question was posed, "According to Willie Wonka where do Oompa Loompas come from." Well the answer is obvious... They come from Loompaland, which is a region of Loompa, a small isolated island in the Pacific Ocean. The point of course is that even if you neither believe in Oompa Loompas, nor Loompaland, you can divorce yourself from your own personal beliefs and answer the question by roll playing in the mindset of Willie Wonka (who is also a fictitious character).
The question posed in this thread was, "Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?" Therefore we are leaving our personal beliefs aside and responding only with reality according to the Bible. Rather you personally believe that Jesus was merely a sitcom character or a real person is not relevant to the question posed. According to the Bible he was a real person who said that God created the man and the woman at the beginning of creation. You are more than welcome to express your belief or disbelief in the Bible, but what you can not do is deny what the Bible clearly teaches.
I am wondering how you are reaching this conclusion about how the Jewish people appreciated the story.
I derive this from several Old and New Testament Bible texts. For example in the Psalms, David expressed his understanding of Genesis one as God speaking the word and the stars were created.
Psalm 33:6.
Psalm 148:4-5. This demonstrates that he did not see the Genesis 1 account as merely a fable. Also we must not forget that the same person who wrote Genesis also wrote Exodus. In
Exodus 20:8-11 he describes the sabbath in context with a literal 7 day week and clearly compares it to the creation week. This shows us that he did not intend for it to be taken as a fable but rather to be taken as 7 literal days. Next we have to consider the fact that both Jews and Christians alike believe that because of Adam's sin in the garden, sin came upon all of humanity.
1 Corinthians 15:22. This view makes no sense if you believe the creation of Adam was merely the creation of the Jewish race. How would his sins have effected other living humans? In the Old Testament genealogy of
1 Chronicles 1:1-7 Adam is listed as the very first man, and this theme is carried on into the New Testament genealogy of
Luke 3 where all the men are assigned human fathers with the exception of the first man Adam who is called a direct descendant of God. Also I would direct your attention to
1 Corinthians 15:45-47 where the issue is settled "Biblically" and we are clearly told that Adam was in fact the first living being.
I see that you managed to avoid commenting on this:
Oh, and as somebody raised in Australia, I'll point out that aborigines were living in Australia long before the time of Adam.
I failed to comment on this because this thread is not about rather or not the Bible is scientifically accurate. It is instead about if Adam was BIBLICALLY the first man.
And I think I have demonstrated that according to Willie, Oompas do in fact come from Loompaland.