Oops. Look like I need to pay closure attention to what I read. Sorry Colin. It looks like I agree with you by what you mean by saying Jesus is divine. I was discussing this matter on the Amazing Discoveries message board where those holding anti-trinitarian positions used the "and the Word was divine" argument to show that Jesus is not in fact the Almighty God, equal to the Father.

The main point I was making with the Greek of John 1:1 is that it does not allow for either Arianism or Sabelianism.

Tom, if you want a rock solid text that refers to Jesus as God, read the 25th chapter of Isaiah. You could also read the 50th Psalm. In fact, John the Baptist's ministry was to "make straight in the desert a highway for our God". There are many more OT references to Jesus as God. In the NT we have John 1:1, Thomas' confession. In fact, when it talks about the coming of "the great God and our Saviour..." the Greek allows for the reading "our great God and Saviour".

According to SDA Beliefs, Jesus is God is the same sense the Father is God. God is a word that includes the Father, Son, and Spirit. Godhead is probably a better word. God is a unity of three eternal, equal and divine Beings. The word God is plural or aggregate.

I was dealing with the New Testament. The Old Testament doesn't distinguish between the members of the Godhead so clearly as the New. Jesus is referred to as Jehovah in the Old, which is a good argument in and of itself IMO as to His divinity and eternal self-existance.

But back to the other point, the word "God" as it is used in the New Testament is by a huge majority of texts used to refer to the Father. There is the text in John 1:1, and also the text where Thomas says, "My Lord and my God" as exceptions which come to mind.

We use phrases such as "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit", but I'm not aware of these expressions being used in the Spirit of Prophecy.

Strange how semantics are only semantics until their part in the basis of salvation is realised, and suddenly they aren't just semantics anymore...

Unfortunately that's invariably also the moment that the discussion stops, since it requires serious re-evaluation.

I just don't find the argument that Jesus Christ did not exist from all eternity or that the Holy Spirit isn't a being because God the Father is called "God" to be very convincing (although I'm not sure what your take on Jesus being pre-existent is -- you seemed to indicate you weren't saying He wasn't, but I'm not clear on this point).

Also the basis of salvation comment eludes me. If Christ did or did not exist at some point in time which is so long ago that I can't conceive of it, how would that involve my salvation? Actually I can think of some implications to God's character if that were true (that there was a time when Christ did not exist), but they aren't positive ones.

How does viewing the Holy Spirit as a "person" but not a being contribute to my salvation?

The issues I see as crucial are ones having to do with God's character; specifically, is it really true that God is just like Jesus Christ? Does God resort to force if other means fail? Is He arbitrary? Does faith in Christ save us from sin, or from God? These are the types of questions I see as crucial.

So if things are as you see them, as opposed to how I seem them, how is that crucial to salvation? Please dot the i's and cross the t's for me.

To be clear what I believe:
1)Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God from the days of eternity.
2)There was never a time when He did not exist.
3)The Holy Spirit is a person in the ordinary sense of the word, meaning an individual who is able to act independently.

Thanks Colin!

I see God and divinity as two different aspects of the Trinity doctrine. Just like the word "man" includes the husband and wife, the word "God" includes the Father, Son, and Spirit. In the same way men and women are human, the Father, Son, and Spirit are divine. There is no compromise or contradiction.

If there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when our salvation did not exist. However, the fact our salvation is eternal is just one more proof that Jesus is also eternal. If there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when He did not qualify to be our Saviour.

The reason why Jesus is qualified to be our Saviour, and not an angel or some other non-eternal being, is due in part to the fact He is eternal. Only members of the Godhead are eternal, therefore, Jesus, who is eternal, is a member of the Godhead- by virtue of the fact He is eternal.

Yes, in answer to if this helps. The whole conversation is helpful.

I'm sure the theologians that put the statements together which we parse do not see things eye to eye, so I can't accept the premise that we have a view in the sense that the Catholics do. In the past we have been very careful not to go beyond what the Scriptures say, and pretty much just repeat that, which was prudent, I think. But just because some dude gets to right some thing about what he thinks and pass it off as "official" in no way implies that that's what Seventh-day Adventists believe. Well this is just a passing rant.

Ok, back to the issue at hand. I believe it was just as possible for the Father to have come to earth and done what the Son did, and believe there is a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy which implies this. She says something along the lines that had the Father come here and the Son stayed, nothing would have been different, which implies to my mind that this is something which could have happened. I believe it was just as possible for the Father to have been incarnate as the Son, and had the Father become flesh, then He could have laid down His life just like the Son did.

I believe Christ is the Son of God from eternity, but that we a mistake if we assume "Son" must mean to God what it means to us. That is, we only know sonship by means of procreation. So for us "begotten Son" means that Christ was somehow procreated. That's the only frame of reference that we have. I don't think God is trying to communicate to us that He somehow procreated Christ, but rather is communicating to us as best He can what sort of relationship He has with Jesus Christ. The purpose in doing this is to reveal His character. By better understanding Their relationship, we can better understand the quality of the gift that God gave us in giving us His Son, and by better understanding the quality of the gift (which is that God gave that which was best and dearest to Him, as our favorite or only child would be to us) we can better understand Him.

I understand that before space/time was created, there was no need for Christ to proceed from the Father (and I recognize the inherent paradox of speaking of "before time," but time is something which had to be created at some point, just like space). For Christ to proceed from the Father was a necessity in order for God to communicate with us. Someone had to assume that responsibility, and the Godhead decided it would be Christ to do that. So Christ proceeded from the Father to be His representative to creation.