The Church teaches that the Word (who is God) by the Holy Spirit (the his own Power of God and Mary's flesh) enfleshed himself and became man. At least that's what the Creed says (in Slavonic and by all accounts in Greek too). There is no word "made" anywhere in there.
Thus, the Word (who is God) took on human nature (one person, two natures). It doesn't say that God by his word "made" Jesus, as Justin Martyr believed. Christological dogma of the Church did not yet exist, and one finds all sorts of Christological variants among even Church Fathers.
Even the Church did not know the "exact" formula, but "worked" on it. Thus in 325 AD (1st Ecum. Council) the Creed simply stated:
But by the Second Ecum. Council in 381 AD (one generation later) it was edited to read:
PS I suspect the the "making" error apparently started with the Latin translation which uses the word "factus" (from facio, to make) in the Creed.
"Καί είς ενα Κύριον, Ίησούν Χριστόν, τόν Υιόν του Θεού τόν μονογενή, τόν εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τών αιώνων. Φώς εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεού αληθινού γεννηθέντα, ού ποιηθέντα, ομοούσιον τώ Πατρί, δι’ ού τά πάντα εγένετο.
Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών καί σαρκωθέντα εκ Πνεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής Παρθένου καί ενανθρωπήσαντα."
"σαρκωθέντα", became enfleshed
"ενανθρωπήσαντα", became man
There's nothing in the original Creed which speaks of Christ being "made" by anyone or anything. And the problem, Kosta is right, is the Latin "...et homo factus est."
Because the Protestants take their Nicene Creed from the Latins, the error compounded and we see quasi Arian and outright Nestorian thought being regularly preached by Protestants who simply don't understand what the difference is.
***If Jesus was “made” through the word of God, then Jesus is a creature. I don’t have to tell that this is not what the Church teaches.***
Actually, that’s not how I read the quotation or Kolo’s question. Jesus Himself was not ‘made’; the flesh was made.