maybe we could move what looks to be a topic-of-its-own on the Holy Spirit since it is different from the goal of this topic?

As the Holy Spirit is part of the doctrine of the Trinity, as long as it is on account of this topic, it fits in with this topic.

maybe you are right. the trinity and antitrinity positions are just two sides of the same coin upon inspection.

they both see the Son and the HS coming out of the Father, the difference is just how and when.

Tom, Maybe you probably missed my question (see previous page). I would be very interested in your answers as we discussed about this previously in other threads and I never ask you directly your position.

In your own words how do you view the following :
1. the spirit of God,
2. the Spirit of Man,
3. the spirit of Holy Spirit
4. Mind of Man
5. The differences between Mind and Spirit of man?
6. Anything else to enlighten us.

Some anti-trinitarians may say that, but our church, when non-trinitarian, used to teach the Son, having been the Word from the beginning, derived the form of God - so his body as Son "begotten of God", but not him being of the Godhead, from the Father; yet, not the same for the HS. The Holy Spirit, is from the Father and the Son, both being the fulness of the Godhead, as the it is the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead.

Yes, some anti-trinitarians typically regard the Spirit as solely the influence of God among men, without personhood. This is a view that disregards Sister White's statement of the HS being a divine person as much as the Father and Son, but not just like them. This is where & how my non-trinitarian stance is defined. SDA trinitarianism allocates a body to the Holy Spirit as well as not being of the Father or Son but being with them - like the Word of Jn 1:1, but such is not revealed in Scripture or SOP.

I'm anti-trinitarian on the church rejecting both the wording and plain reading of "only begotten" for Jesus. We used to take it as written, and not try to explain it at all - since we can't: being too clever has changed that, as making it too human doesn't work, but rejects the idea. The Bible presents a Godhead-based relationship between the pre-existent Son and his Father, and dare we attempt to fathom how it was possible that they relate as revealed - so that we deny a relationship, claiming it can't be humanly understood so can't be. Figurative, we're told: well, the problem with that is: how much should truly be figurative in the Bible??? It all unravels if we make figurative what shouldn't be: anything is up for grabs if we can't explain it to take it on faith....

Can it be divine, mysterious, instead, simply as stated in the Bible??

some actual statements from them, in context, might be nice.

This is a tricky question. I understand your point, as I face this same thing when discussing whether the future is fixed or open. We see certain texts in Scripture where God expresses displeasure that things turned out differently than He expected, and these are explained by those who believe in the fixed future as being figurative. So I feel your pain, so to speak. Different issues, but the same question, as to how to properly divide the word insofar as how much and what is figurative.