If you're implying it wasn't the apostles who wrote it, you'd be right. It is of later provenance. What I like about it is that:

(a) It is 100% scriptural and so makes a good rallying point for all believers, Messianic and Evangelical; and

(b) It's one the earliest known creeds, originating in Aramaic Syria; and

(c) It emphasises the importance of the physical resurrection which New Age 'Christians', Jehovah's Witnesses and some Messianics (sadly) deny.

Welcome to the Messianic Dork Association lol. You are far from being alone. And a good laugh we enjoy with people but not at their expense. We have all been served Humble Pie and occasionally get served Roast Crow rofl

To answer your question as to who actually wrote the Apostles' Creed, nobody knows for sure. The various theories are neatly summarised in a Wiki article:

Many hypotheses exist concerning the date and nature of the origin of the Apostles' Creed.

Throughout the Middle Ages it was believed to have been created directly by the Apostles while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with each of the twelve apostles contributing one of the articles. Around this same time Rufinus describes an account of the creation of the Creed that he claims to have received from earlier times. Rufinus claims that the Creed was a joint effort by the twelve apostles; however, more modern views and research regarding the origin of the Creed label these accounts as highly unlikely.[3]

While modern versions of the creed are similar to the baptismal confessions of the Church of Southern Gaul[3], most scholars believe it developed from what scholars have identified as "the Old Roman Symbol" of the 1st or 2nd century and influenced later by the Nicene Creed (325/381) [3]. Some historians date the origin of the Apostles' Creed as late as 5th century Gaul. The earliest known concrete historical evidence of the creed's existence as it is currently titled (Symbolum Apostolicum) is a letter of the Council of Milan (390) to Pope Siricius (here in English):

"If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate."
The earliest appearance of the present Latin text was in the De singulis libris canonicis scarapsus ("Excerpt from Individual Canonical Books") of St. Priminius (Migne, Patrologia Latina 89, 1029 ff.), written between 710-724 (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Longmans, Green & Co, 1972, pp. 398-434).

The actual origin of the creed, at least in its oldest form, is thought by some to be much older than any official documentation of its presence. A major aspect of the creed in many churches is an emphasis on memorizing the Creed, rather than simply reading it, a tradition that would make official documentation regarding the earliest forms scarce.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed

With the rampant Gnosticism in the Messianic Movement in our day I think a credal statement like this then becomes quite an important litmus test for orthodoxy. It doesn't go into Godhead doctrines (thank goodness) so I still feel it is a legitimate statement around which all Messianics and Christians can rally.

Gnosticism, yes, in many shapes and forms. Whilst paying lip-service to Yah'shua, or simply making Him an 'add-on', many Messianics are seeking the imagined 'higher ground' of self-imputed righteousness through Torah obedience, Israel-identity and salvation through knowledge. Worse, in some respects, is the inherent kabbalah-derived thesophy which sees YHWH as a glorified man - Adam Kadmon - with all the New Age and Mormon inferences. We see this strongly on UNOYC which bases its marriage doctrines on the kabbalistic tree of life that are almost identical to Toaist ideas.