The most that can be said about the Athanasian Creed s delineation of the Trinity is that it is fuller than that in the other two creeds mentioned I don t think you can say that any particular exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity is a the full delineation of it Are we to say that the expositions by later theologians such as Aquinas are less full than that in the Athanasian Creed on which these later theologians built To say that according to the 381 creed the Holy Spirit is merely worshipped and glorified unjustifiably leaves out the highly important phrase about the way the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son The First Council of Constantinople which inserted these words into the Niceno Constantinopolitan Creed seems certainly to have thought it was thereby asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians Abraham too was worshipped and glorified while still alive but not with the Father and the Son Though here you use the word explicitly in the article you changed The Nicene Creed explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus to The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus and then with your In contradistinction to the Apostles Creed thereby suggested that the divinity of Jesus is not affirmed even implicitly in the Apostles Creed You know of course that the Apostles Creed as we know it I don t mean the Old Roman Symbol is much later than the Nicene Creed we should not give readers the impression that those who drew up the Apostles Creed did not believe in the divinity of Jesus In my text I did not state that the Apostles Creed does affirm the divinity of Jesus all I said was that the most that can be said i e claimed about it is that the idea of the divinity of Jesus is implicit in it