Video above is comprehensive; if you experience problems playing it, just look up "Trinity Verses" and "brainouty" in Youtube. And, if you view it in Youtube, the video description at right of video, provides you with my other webpages where the impact of Trinity is discussed. It's important to see how and WHY Trinity is valid, else you'll not understand either salvation, or the spiritual life.
My sites often focus on the nature of God and Trinity, all of them partial discussions or citation listings; because the topic crops up in so many differing contexts, this page will eventually contain links to all such sections. What follows is perhaps the most economical description, and roster of Bible citations. Use the links above to see more, especially the "Mystery Math" link.
To give you an idea of how prevalent Trinity is, the usual OT method of designating Trinity is WORDPLAY in the original languages. That means the Trinity are so well known, nicknames on Abram are used to denote the FATHER; wordplay on children and issue (and even motherhood, in Isa53) are used to denote the Son; wordplay on life and breath are used to designate the Spirit. Because, in the Hebrew, all these ideas tie to SYLLABLES in Their Names. Even the famous YHWH itself, is a concatenation of two famous Hebrew verbs: "to be" (haYAH) and "to become (haWAH). Hebrew is an economical language, so vowels aren't written, but only consonants, because the vowel sounds naturally pronounce given the consonantal juxtaposition. So it was naturally written down, only in consonants, since people didn't need the vowels (vowel points were inserted in the Hebrew OT during the Middle Ages by the Masoretes). So "YHWH" is not a secret, unknown Name and meaning. It is sacred, but not secret (dunno where dingbats got the idea it was secret). So it means "He Who Always Was.. Becomes!" Meaning, God the Son becoming Jesus (=Savior) the Christ(=Messiah=Anointed One, King/Savior). Bible is always clear. So clear, it uses wordplay.
Heck, the month of July-August is even named "Father" (Ab); according to Jewish tradition everything bad that's Temple-related happened on the 9th of Ab. You can prove the 1st Temple was destroyed 10th Ab (9th on solar calendar), Jer52:12. Calendar being off when the 2nd Temple was destroyed would lead to a 9th Ab=28-29August, 70AD, when it burned.
This wordplay sometimes can't even be hidden in translation. Isaiah is constantly playing on Trinity in what he writes. Chapter 9 is a whole Trinity chapter, as is Isa53. Isa63 is a great Trinity chapter, and very bald. Verses 1-9 are about the Son (here depicted at 2nd Advent, having just slaughtered all of Israel's enemies) -- keyword Redeemer (maybe playing back to Job?); verses 9-10 mention all Three of them at once per verse (like a couplet), using Sacred Name Play, showing how They work in concert; note the three "He" clauses in each verse; note how the Holy Spirit is in front by Name in v.10, since it was the Holy Spirit Who lead them out of Israel, around the wilderness (the pillar and the cloud) -- topic of verses 11-14; verse 15-19 are to the Father. Verse 16 is Ab wordplay -- ties to Matt23:9, Isa9:6, focusing on Father and Son Who 'fathered' Salvation-to-Come. Very wry writ! The LXX (Greek OT used by the Lord and NT writers, apostles) tries to emulate the Hebrew wordplay, when it can. In both Massoretic (BHS) Hebrew OT and LXX (which has verses missing from the BHS), Isaiah 53:10-11 uses this "He" structure to denote Father, Son and Spirit via "haphets" and "bouletai" LEGAL CONTRACT clauses. The contract was made in eternity past, else there would be no creation. As you read and ponder its terms, you can see that.
In short, to find Trinity in the OT, you need to know the rhetorical styles used to communicate it. That's like spotting the characteristics of a car on the road. Once you've seen a Maserati, you'll be able to later recognize another one. Then, you see many of them. So when you hear people bemoan the lack of OT Trinity verses, just smile. They betray their disdain for studying the Word, and then of course disdaining it, blame the Word for being obtuse. It's they who are obtuse. You can prove this. And if you want to know the Word, God will not withhold from your puny brain (however credentialed), the answers. Period. He denies no one. We deny Him. Prove it: use 1Jn1:9, follow prayer protocol (i.e., ask Father in Son's Name) and just ASK HIM to show you where Trinity verses are in the OT. Then go look! That's what I did. Same protocol is available to any brainout, scholar or no. (Again, this isn't to put down scholars. All academia and science are weighed down with politics. A scholar may know well how Trinity is displayed, but because of the political "consensus" rule -- meaning, you have to say fuzz phrases like "the consensus among scholars is", "the data suggest" and you are NOT allowed to be definitive -- the scholar must hedge, in public statements. Can't get politics out of academia and science. People's egos are bound up in their having 'knowledge'. Dunno why people use knowledge to account themselves better or worse than another person. We all have sin natures. But that's how it is. Can't get rid of politics then, because can't get rid of the sin nature.)
One very common style of demonstrating Trinity is antiphony: that means, an interactive singing/chanting reply between two or more 'sides'. Roman Catholicism borrowed from antiphony to create its "mass", where the priest talks and everyone stands up and replies. The Hebrew original is much more enjoyable, but the idea is the same. Hence the OT uses antiphony a lot: One Member suddenly breaking in and talking with Another, as in Psalm 110, Isa52:14-54:1; it's rife in both Psalms and Isaiah, so probably many other prophetical books as well. Translations always cut God's Head off, so these antiphonal discourses, which are communicated via the suffixes of verbs and nouns in the original languages, are usually stripped out in translation. Dingdongs who do that think they are 'cleaning up' a Word which somehow got adulterated, lol: though the liturgy of Hebrew worship is antiphonal! Another good example of antiphony is in Jer30:20-22: usually these verses are mistranslated, thus masking the antiphony (which uses the "He" rhetorical convention, with Father suddenly interrupting to testify in v.21, a parallel verse to Isa53:10's im tashim asham naphesho, a contract clause I live on, daily). Translations always mask Trinity verses: Satan&Co. aren't stupid, but we are. Don't blame the translators, since no one's weaknesses are a match for their strength.
Quite often the Trinity, the Son, the Holy Spirit or Father is designated by EMBEDDED soundplay: the way juxtaposed syllables sound out Their Hebrew names when the sentence is spoken, read. The sound embedding is rife with a number of concepts and words, wryly denoting FOUNDATIONALITY for the verse's topics. A real poignant example of that is the Hebrew of Isa52:14, "k'asher shamemu alayká", where ke+asher sounds like "kasher", meaning "pure"; and "alayká" sounds like "Eloheka", meaning Your God (last name, but in this verse the Son takes on Humanity and gets beaten beyond human recognition by those He came to save). Hebrew lexicons like TWOT (The Workbook of the Old Testament) all notice the embedded soundplay on the "El" sound, so this isn't some brainout's news. But it's news to those who don't do their homework, then run in chatrooms and smugly announce that Trinity isn't in the OT, lol, upsetting all the spiritual babies in the 'room'! [Of course, until I did my own homework, I didn't know either. Mea maxima culpa.]
Or, by humorous, tender metaphor: for example, the Holy Spirit is both designated by name and by His Primary Self-Chosen 'Mothering' function, in Gen1:2's "rahaph", a Mother Hen brooding over her chicks. So also, the "wings" (sheltering, defending) or "flying" references in the OT designate Him (as well as Trinity and Father and Son, depending on context): since Christ Himself would 'fly' in the spiritual life of His Humanity, UNDER the Holy Spirit. Notice how flying references air, wind, breath, life ="Ruach", His 'first name' in the OT. So we aren't surprised by Paul's comment to the Thessalonians that the Holy Spirit is the One Who Restrains Evil, that only when He removes Himself at the Rapture, can the "lawless one" arrive (2Thess2:6-7, usu. 2:6 mistranslates "Who" as "what"). [Katechw is used in both verses 6 and 7, so there's no excuse to mistranslate v.6's neuter as "what", since Pneuma is neuter. But because 2Thess 2:2 is mistranslated, the whole chapter gets messed up; same thing happened in 1Cor with respect to 1:5 and 1:10, so this is a common pattern of mistranslation. Translators seem to have a bad hair day with 1Thess2:2. The dia clauses are anarthrous, so YES are talking about The Holy Spirit, and the Word they and others, write the Thessalonians. So it's don't-get-upset-and-therefore-lose-the-Spirit-over-what-Word-written-you, "about the IMPENDING Day of the Lord." That's the best English idiom for translation. More literal would be "about the Day of the Lord which is now impending, sudden, unpredictable and next-in-sequence." The phrase "impending.." is Greek verb enistemi; it means an overhanging, imminent, 'threat' of a thing, next in sequence, you don't know when it will happen. Paul puts it in the perfect tense, signifying the CERTAINTY of the event itself coming to pass at some unpredictable future moment. Paul also plays on that concept in the beginning of the verse with tachews, which is a play on tachú, the Lord's interjected warning in the Gospel about His Suddenly Coming Back, aka the Rapture. Then Paul further plays on salpigxz, the "trumpet call" in 1Thess4:16, which verse they well knew -- by using Greek soundalike but opposite meaning verb, saleuw, to become discombobulated, agitated like troops in disarray due to defeat on the battlefield (unlike the taxis, battle order, which would result from a salpigxz, see also 1Cor15:52). Yet for all this obviousness, no commercially-published Bible translation I can read, gets 1Thess2:2 right (but my German isn't too good, so check the German); but each translation so mangles the meaning, cutting God's Head off. They all miss the anarthrous construction in the verse. So of course the Holy Spirit's Head is chopped off in v.6. It's incredible, how no one takes a fresh look at the original languages, when providing a 'new' translation to sell the public, but instead just copies the prior translations! But even among those prior translation, you get Big Hints that the original language meaning in v.2 is nothing like the translated 'supposition' idea. For example, the 1989 Reina Valera mistranslates Paul as saying "como si fuera nuestra", but the 1909 Reina properly does not add "si fuera", como si fuera en el verso. The 1989 puts in "que ya hubiera llegado", but the 1909 properly says, "esté cerca". The 1909 verse mistranslated as well, but in those two phrases, it's right, but all the other translations (i.e., the 1989) are wrong. Oh: I'm too far off-topic, so I'll stop now.]
But all translations are abstruse, mistranslated, truncated and blanded out versions of Holy Writ. Blasphemous, really. RightPT.htm has a link in it (at its pagetop) on how the Bible is "Badly Translated", and furnishes a summary of how bad the translations are. You can take the categories in the summary and prove every one of them, by comparing any translation to the original-language texts of Bible.
Bible translations have always been problemmatic, which is why people fight so much; the translations are fuzzy, at best. Scholars know this; pastors know it; but for fear of massive defection, this fact about the translations being bad in key places, is not much discussed. Of course, many of us laymen know this, which accounts for the recent popularity of learning the original languages of Scripture.
The 'body' of old 'Christian' teaching on Trinity is thus often childish, flawed, and poorly-worded. Again, scholars and pastors know this, but the average joe is still inclined to venerate what's old. It's natural respect to want to do this. Hence the old errors are centuries old and persist, no one willing to correct them. Again, for fear of mass defection. Bible Is Perfect, and the translations while flawed, can now be corrected. So you can really still learn Him. Question is, are you willing to compare what you thought was right, to the Real Authority, the original-language preserved-by-God texts of Bible? Your choice.
So now one who uses translations to build doctrines, hates God. No kinder way to put it, and we are all guilty: it's a lot of trouble to use those original-language texts. But God went to a whole lot of trouble to preserve those texts; so anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of learning them, hates God. Granted, we all need the translations partially, and for a while even when using the originals. Granted, you must first be aware that all translations are flawed, to seek the texts He preserved. Granted, many people in history could not get them. But once you know -- and all pastors know, it's taught in seminary -- then there is no excuse. And of course our sin natures genetically 'hate' God, anyway, Isa52:14. What a great salvation, He bought for us!
Big problem among genuine Trinitarians is that they stumble over the bad lawyer language in their denominational creeds. The creeds try to condense Bible's teaching into easy-to-remember formulae, but unfortunately are often poorly thought out. So then, the Trinity get deemed a "mystery", when in fact the language of the creed is at fault. Then, the adherent in the denomination is badgered (sotto voce) into defending the wording, with the result that 'dissonant' wording is subjectively deemed heretical.
It's an easy problem to fix. The creedal definitions of Trinity all intend to rightly convey that the attributes of Father, Son, Spirit are the same, not unequal. This is true. But their wordings deny God's Several Independence. So to deny saying "Gods", which is the Truth, maligns Their Personhoods. This unintended maligning, needs correcting. LordvSatan2.htm tries to offer a correction to the historical "Three IN One" concept in the creeds, to the Biblical "Three AND One", of passages like 2Cor13:14 (communicated by the articles -- look up how articles in Greek, are used).
So, Westminster Creed definition is off in that it assumes "oneness" is quasi-spatial, hence uni-substantial, incapable of being replicated. Hence the creed, like so many before and after it, paints "God" as a hydra-headed monster. So its prescriptive of "oneness", is a quasi-symbiotic(!) co-dependence. So, you are heretical if you say "Gods", lol! As if, each Person wasn't wholly God on His Own? Then salvation would be a sham! Catholic "Unicity" definition is quite similar, but goes farther with the symbiosis, claiming God would otherwise be "diminished" (same term as in the Koran). Other sects basically reflect these two major definitional patterns. Note the inability to recognize that Infinity is qualitative, hence the inability to conceive of more than one set of attributes being Identical in Three Persons. The creedal definitions of "one" make Them 'share' the attributes, which is the opposite of the truth.
Yet both acknowledge Three Independent, Co-Equal, Infinite, Same-Essence Gods, so they are trinitarian, only fuzzy. They just avoid the plural, as if a plural (um, Elohim is plural) were heretical. Kinda stupid to do that, but they think it's polytheistic to say "Gods" -- why, I can't fathom. 2Cor13:14 says Three Co-Equal Infinite Identical-Essence Gods, plural, via the use of its articles (Greek "ho"). No doubt about it. We're talking Triplets, here (my pastor's statement, in describing Trinity).
Designations of this Triplet nature are all over Bible, and as usual, are deft and humorous.
What distinguished Israel from all nations is that their sacrifices witnessed God 'sacrificing' Himself by taking on humanity, not man doing any sacrificing. God-Son sacrifices to God-Father, get it? That was the entire meaning of the Ark, His God-man nature! The entire ritual structure was a Memorial, yet-to-Come!
Think how the Levitical (and even prior) sacrifices worked. An animal was killed to designate contract. That was just as true when Abel cut the throat of the first lamb (Hebrew, English masks), as when they did it in the Temple. This animal represents a substitutionary payment on MY behalf. I'm not the one dying, My Lord will do the paying for me. Life given to SAVE a life, and the life saved, is as helpless as that animal. But also, Gratitude Memorial, just as we remember soldiers who died on battlefields for our nation's freedom.
That's why blood was sprinkled on the Ark. Inside the ark were representations of man's sin: the rod that budded (rebellion against Aaron's priesthood, in Numbers), and the first set of Broken Tablets (when Moses first came down from Sinai, operation Golden Calf). Ark represents Christ (gold=deity, wood=humanity), 'holding' sin. Blood Sprinkled represented Payment Completed, and Acknowledgement by Israel (represented by the high priest) of BELIEF. All this, Hebrews painstakingly explains in Chaps 5-10. There is no element whatsoever of man doing ANY paying to God. Only, him acknowledging what GOD does. You have to be downright crazy to think this ritual is man sacrificing something TO God, himself. Everything about it screams, "You can't pay, so I will." So, it's a Memorial to what Son will Voluntarily do, Towards Father, on behalf of humanity. Like, giving one's life for his country. Plain as that.
So our not knowing and being confused is here not a 'translation' problem, but a problem of negative volition. These are all symbols, so no language barrier. So if you don't 'get' what they mean, it's only because you don't think about what they mean, due to disinterest or negative valuation assigned to the symbols. And, we all are the "you" in the foregoing sentence. When it comes to the REAL God, there is a natural disinclination to think. It's in the genes...
Polytheism's chief characteristic is UNequal essence of gods. Zeus, for example, was more powerful than Pluto (I forget his greek name). So don't mix up UNequal essence with plurality of independent persons -- the former is polytheism. Infinity is not spatial, but qualitative; so the number of Persons, is not diminished at all by being more than one.
So, it's not surprising that every culture's religion talks of "oneness", "spirits", of "sacrifice", and "to the gods". They just cut out the original meaning, changing the meaning the very same way that an original language changes in sound and spelling, over the years. So notice: you can't go the opposite direction, from multiple unequal gods to Three Infinite Gods. It has to start with the Three Infinite Ones and truncate downward, conceptually. Same, for the idea of "sacrifice": you can't start with man doing the sacrificing and then go UP to God doing it, you have to start with God doing it and then subtract from that meaning. In short, both ideas and words change from some initial state and then due to subtractions, become something else. Because, like the first law of math, no set of ideas, like no set of numbers, can contain itself, but is contained by something larger than itself. So when you multiply those subtracted meanings, you morph out a whole language of thought, ideas, culture, religion, whatever.
Notice how the angst of Christians centers on a problem of what "one" means as a concept, when applied to "God". So, it's not a problem with the translation, but with the brain reading it. Since "one" in every language known to man is always used more often figuratively than literally, i.e., "to be of one mind" (unitedness), "to become one flesh" (euphemism for the sex act, again a unitedness), "One World" (again, unitedness), clearly the brain shuts off, when seeing "one" with respect to "God"; even though "God" is a plural word (Elohim), or a corporate noun (Theos). So it's not the Bible which is abstruse. The brain reading it, isn't working.
So, it's no surprise that many within and without Christendom, have problems conceiving of Infinite God as being capable of plurality. Somehow that would 'diminish' Him ('diminish' being a keyword in Koran and in Catholic "Unicity" definition). Hinduism, Islam, Judaism alike share this inability to conceive how Infinity can BE infinity, if more than one Person. Why? Because to them Infinity is spatial. The idea 'occupies all', so cannot be more than one in number. If infinity were spatial, it would occupy space, hence could not be but one in number. In which case, none of us could exist, but there would only be one person: the deity. Who wouldn't then BE infinite, because spatial, anyway. Anyone else of ANY type of life thus takes up space, so would 'diminish' that deity, too. But the facts contradict the foregoing sentence, because we exist; hence such a definition of infinity cannot be accurate. Hence theoretically (though we know the actual truth from Bible), there can be any number of non-spatial Infinite Gods.
So, those accounting infinity as spatial, when faced with the dissonant fact of plurality of persons, wave the conundrum away as a 'mystery'. So too, among Trinitarians trapped in this same illogic. Illogic, for we know absolutely that Infinity is not spatial, since we all exist, and we have immaterial souls. None of which, take up any space at all. So an Infinite Mind is non-spatial, and can be of any number, as well. There are, in fact, only Three such Persons, and Each of Them is Unique; even as, each of us (though of smaller minds), is unique.
So all three faiths must resort to the idea that God 'manifests' Himself in different FORMS; all these forms, are BUT forms, so always the same Person is displayed. Hinduism, of course, is best known for this idea of manifestation, but the other two major faiths alike propound it. Yes, even the Koran talks about the Holy Spirit, and repeatedly. Post-Bible Judaism's (non-Biblical) Mishnah is chock-full of references to the Spirit (and some to the Father), as well. Do your own homework, see for yourself. [According to Encarta 2004 (which isn't always accurate, k) the Mishna was compiled toward the end of the 2nd century, beginning of the 3rd century. That's significant, because Christian apostacy was in full swing beginning in the 2nd century -- which is why Revelation had to be written and had to be the last book of the Bible (same idea as why Malachi is the last OT book). By 96AD Christian apostacy had begun swinging to the Rev17 harlot, and Rome was the center of that politicization (see Rom12:1-3 in the Greek, to know why -- pleasing men was more important than pleasing God, so Paul lambasts the Romans in those verses). So you have two apostacizing trends going at the same time, one in Christianity, one in Judaism. That's the historical backdrop for the "Satan's Mystery Math" table in LvS4a.htm.]
So Christians who claim God is but one person by recourse to 'manifestation' verses, desperately need a course in the English language, and to breathe 1Jn1:9. This is one of the clearest categories manifesting satanic clouding of mankind. Frankly, the word "manifestation" is mistranslated. It's phaneroo, which means to DISCLOSE INFORMATION, not a showing of self. Even in English, "manifestation" doesn't necessarily mean to show the self, but to show 'something'. But "manifestation of the Spirit" in English is misleading, and does sound like the Spirit is showing Himself Personally. That's not what the Greek means at all. You'll see this, since the Greek of one of these verses, 1Cor12:7, will be explained in detail, below.
So this "manifestation" tenet -- which underlies Hinduism and all Eastern pagan religions -- is really, a 'manifesto of Satan': his own oneness 'doctrine'. Satan is sooo into deriding God. God has His Own Oneness Begetting Plan, as evidenced in John 17. Satan thus wordplays off that, to a 'fornicating' definition of God being One Person. Masturbation, get it? Sorry, but Satan&Co. are into coarse wordplay, and so is the Bible (which coarseness is always blotted out from translations). So Satan touts "oneness" as being merely manifestations or 'parts of' the One to Obfuscate (the "O" in his "DIOS" strategy of making God foreign to us). Trinity is thus Obfuscated, and now salvation as portrayed in the Bible, won't work. So Bible looks like it's a lie, or a goofball book, so now everyone should abandon Bible or call it a mystery, never learning what's in the Bible, but rather preening over how self believes God despite the fact He makes no sense! See, religiosity is petty. Satan invented religion in Gen3, so "oneness" is disgusting to him. All the phallicism promoted by Satan&Co. is a burlesque to deride mankind and above all, to deride God's True Definition of Oneness.
Of course, this satanic doctrine manifests also in the Trinitarian who makes God an Egg, so that you can't say, "Gods". Same clouding: inability to think of Infinity except in a spatial manner is behind ALL such clouding. The person clouded by spatial ideas of Infinity (an oxymoron, since space LIMITS SIZE), can't understand that They are not cojoined in nature. So, such a person, cojoins them; so, makes God an Egg. So, makes God not-god. Not meaning to, of course. Same conceptual error that infinity were spatial, as plagues the 'manifestation' people.
Let's just pick a 'oneness' Christian who speaks English. The keyword he's invariably stuck on, is "manifest", especially since that word is used in the Bible. (Same satanic blinding problem as suffered by the Hindus, Moslems, Jews.) English verb "to manifest x" means To Make It Known, Demonstrate, Disclose it; the archaic noun form, "manifestation of x", used to mean To What Actor The Disclosure BELONGS. Yeah, the actor is disclosing his IDENTITY when he speaks: DEPOSITION is the proper legal term; the actor is peripheral to the disclosure, the WITNESS, itself.
Problem with modern English "manifestation of", is that the object, is the CONTENT of the disclosure; manifesto of the Unabomber, manifest of cargo, manifestation of symptoms. Notice how, the object is inanimate, because it is INFORMATION. Maybe information ABOUT a person, but is not the person himself. Rather, the verb "to manifest" would be used for persons: he manifests himself truly; she manifests cupidity. The child manifests talent. Because, "manifestation of" OBJECTIFIES a thing to the INFORMATION about it, so makes it impersonal.
But the archaic "manifestation of", is rooted in non-English languages; the GENITIVE CASE, which English also translates with "of", which is truncated from, "ORIGIN of". [English "of" is always a shorthand: from the source of, from the desk of, of possession, etc. So all these different meanings being cut to "of", is fine for the English speaker, because he knows what's in ellipsis. But when translating, you must put back in which type of "of", the original language means, else conundrums like this one over 1Cor12:7's "manifestation of the Spirit", go on forever!] So also here, the ORIGIN or AGENCY of the material is stressed. This webpage is a manifestation of brainout, meaning FROM "brainout". So English "manifestation of the Spirit" in verses like 1Cor12:7, means AGENCY, not content; since He is a Person, not inanimate. But it's dated English. No one bothers to change it in translations, because the old is venerated.
Unlike English, Bible's Greek is precise, so you know what is meant. Bible's Greek is so precise, in fact, that wordplay, especially of double-entendres, is rife. This wordplay always references etymological nuances (facts about how words got formed). Translators don't (and can't) translate into English (or any other language), all this precision and wordplay. For example, when 1Cor12:7's Greek text says "phanerosis tou pneumatos" (our infamous "manifestation of the Spirit"), it's using WORDPLAY:
So if "manifestation of the Spirit" meant to show Himself, then 1Cor12:7's "manifestation of the Spirit" would NOT be the translation: for the Object being disclosed in Greek grammar, must be in the DATIVE case. So, if you look in 1Cor12:8ff, a bunch of dative cases are thus used. See, you give disclosure TO someone for their benefit, and you're giving IT; and, you're giving it OF yourself (your own mouth, your own free will, etc). So, we have the 'manifestation of Paul', in 1Cor12, since Paul is disclosing how then-extant spiritual gifts were apportioned, allotted to the Body, FROM the Spirit.
Here's my pastor's corrected translation of 1Cor12:7 from a live Bible class under my pastor which I have on tape (all tapes are of live classes). I pasted the entire text from notes I made in BibleWorks, so just skip over what you don't understand:
Early in s.1 of tape is exeg. BDAG noted that sumphero has also a connotation of benefit-for-the-team (didn't use quite such words, but same meaning)."
So "manifest" always means, even in English, evidence, showing, telling, making known, making a public declaration, making something else clear which was not. The actor only shows up on the stage, because he's doing the disclosing. So if you get your eyes on the Actor, you don't hear what He says; and you'll mistake 1Cor12:7 as being manifestation of the Actor AS an Actor, when His purpose for being on stage, is to GIVE information. Which, you won't hear. Yeah, the Actor is God, and no one is more important. Father is God, no one more important than Him. Son is God, and no one more important than Him. Spirit is God (John 4:23 should not be rendered "God is a Spirit", but "Spirit, God!" -- no verbs there, stressing His Godness). And Spirit shows on stage the most during the Age of Church (Eph3:21, other passages). So no one more important, than Him.
In 1Cor12, for example, Spirit will be disclosing Bible Doctrine which wasn't known before; the manner of the disclosure was then spectacular in nature (tongues, sudden knowledge, healing, miracles); but always such manners-of-disclosure are peripheral to the CONTENT, just as the webpage background is peripheral. The webpage background is manifested, too; but what's IN it, is the focus, not what it looks like. Same, for an author: content, not messenger. Hence, even in English, a "manifesto" means a DISCLOSURE of belief with the rationales underlying it. If I am ill, I will manifest symptoms. A ship's list of cargo is called a manifest. Notice when the subject is a person, and the manifestation is ABOUT the person, in English "manifestation" had to become, a verb, "to manifest". But it's not a verb, in 1Cor12:7, so is About Information He Provides, and only tangentially about Him showing Himself (in HIS Opinion). So the genitive case, "tou pneumatos", is first Who Testifies, and About What. That He shows Himself in the process, goes without saying.
So, since the above is true, the solution for a Christian stuck on "oneness" based on "manifest" terminology, is for him to investigate how phanerow or phanerosis is used all over Bible (very common word). But, he won't do that; hence, you cannot help him. So, what he needs, is to breathe 1Jn1:9 so to be Filled with the Spirit -- Who will be only Too Glad to Heal such a person from his wounded ideas of oneness; Who as always, will make known, disclose, make clear, 'manifest', the Truth.
Larger corollary: if we're not listening to the Spirit, we won't be listening to anyone else, either. So all this 'debating' people do over whether God is One Person, an Egg, or Three Gods, can't help. Trapped yearning for God can only be freed, BY God; and there's no one more interested in saving the trapped: 1Tim2:4. "Let him who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches." You have an ear, so you can hear. I have one also. So all we can do, is keep on being willing to do our own hearing, like James 1 says (esp. vv19-23); and leave the healing of the deaf, to the One Who Manifests the Truth.
Even Larger corollary: God uses those who are hearing to buy time and benefits for those not yet (or never) hearing, analogous to how He obtained propitiation from the Cross. That is a very sophisticated concept, and is explained in various ways in other webpages. For me, the whole concept is exquisitely summarized in the amalgamation of both Masoretic and Greek LXX text of Isa53:10-12, esp. the amalgamated v.11. Isa53.htm has details. I live on that passage daily, to survive the grief over my suffering brethren, for whom I myself can do nothing. But HE can!