Yes, and what so many Protestants forget is that, by necessity, his human nature remains hidden except in his passion. In order for Jesus (the man) never to sin, his human will had to be subordinated to his divine will at all times, and was therefore never expressed as something separate or discernible (except perhaps for a fleeting moment in the Garden of Gethsemane)
So, the Hollywood Jesus, sometimes man, sometimes God, of the Protestant world is a contradiction in terms. They like to portray him as this nice man who every now and then " switches" on his divine nature and acts as God.
The only part of Jesus' humanity that comes to be expressed is his bodily form, his suffering and death. That which suffers corruption (hunger, pain, thirst, sorrow, etc.) is not divine by definition.
Therefore his Incarnation is not an icon of the invisible God. When Paul refers to him as such, he is talking about the risen Christ in the glorified body.
I would venture to say that Paul probably shared the adoptionist views of so many early Christians, considering the pre-resurrection Jesus a man who was made God when, as Paul insists, God raised him.
You could not prove the Creed from any Pauline verse
The Pauline verses used in the Creed are somewhat altered. For instance, the Creed says "and he rose on the third day according to the scriptures." But Paul says "and was raised [by God] on the third day according tot he scriptures."
Subtle but significant.
And that is a matter that I do not believe that we as humans on earth will ever truly understand. Presumably we will understand after our own resurrection, else it will not matter to us then. For now, we have God in incarnate form, called Jesus, reaching down to man on his own level.
Subtle but significant.
From the earliest Christian writings to today, sometimes much more than subtle.