Edit foreword:
I have since come to the opinion that the Trinity is not incompatible with Omnipotence. Omnipotence describes cans, and there is nowhere where God the Son is not *possible to be*(this is the can) God the Father. This is similar to the question of "Can God make an unliftable rock", which is also a flawed question, as a can is only really a thought experiment. While God is omnipotent and he can, it's not done, which supports the Trinitarian view.
Additionally because of this, my later point about it being blasphemy against the Holy Spirit doesn't hold.
I still hold my position on the categorisation of Sin *mostly* being a false teaching by the Catholics. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is correctly categorised differently as unforgivable, but can be argued as uniquely relevant to the Jews blaspheming in the context of it, as they had unique witness and experience that the average person is not privy to.
Ultimately, I think most of this article is bad, but I leave it up so that others may see my past logic and understanding. It wasn't an argument in bad faith, it was just a bad understanding of omnipotence and the idea of "can" do something.
Is the Trinity a False Teaching?
Hi, to any Trinitarian Christians, Bible Scholars or Theologians out there reading this, I'd like to hear your thoughts with regards to the following 3 arguments. I fully encourage you to reach out to me via email.
The Trinity is incompatible with Omnipotence
1. Accept that God is omnipotent. Gen 18:14:
Genesis 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
2. Accept the Trinity. This is the idea that God is The Son. God is The Father. God is the Holy Spirit(or Holy Ghost). The Father is not The Son. The Son is not The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not The Father.
3. You have asserted a limitation on God The Father's power that he cannot be God The Son. Similarly for The Holy Spirit. If God wills it, he can.
The counterpoint is from 2 Timothy 2:13
2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
Holds still, but as the Trinity is asserted in the Nicene Creed and not from Scripture, you cannot just say God the Father cannot deny God The Son- rather the argument must come from scripture that he cannot. You must present an argument from first principles that doesn't rely on the Trinity to defend the Trinity.
A compromised position on this, is that the Trinity does not describe God, but is the closest representation you have of him- but then a representation is just a model for understanding, and does not necessarily hold(let us make a comparison to the Bohr model of atomic structure which turned out to be an incorrect representation).
The Categorisation of sin
1. Mark 3:28 asserts that Jesus Christ came to say all sins shall be forgiven.
Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
2. Mark 3:29 asserts that Blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, shall not be forgiven.
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
I will assert that Mark 3:29 is a clarifying point on one particular form of sin that will not be forgiven. That being blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit is God, this is a sin from the 3rd Commandment(Exodus 20:7).
Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Following from this, I will now assert that there is a categorisation of sin, where only one is unforgiveable. This goes against Catholic Doctrine, which asserts Mortal and Venal. The Catholic church defines grave sins rather widely, allowing any of the commandments being violated to be a mortal sin, equivalent in gravity to this unpardonable sin against The Holy Spirit.
Here Catholic Doctrine is in opposition to Mark 3:28, and thusly is false teaching. I do not know so much for other sects of Christianity, but if they assert an unusual categorisation of sin like this... then they are not in line with scripture, and are thus, false teachings.
The assertion of the Trinity being blasphemy against God, and thus Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
1. Accepting the above argument that the Trinity is incompatible with Omnipotence
2. Accepting the above argument about the unpardonable sin of blasphemy(disrespect and insult)
3. Accept the notion that calling God weaker than he actually is, is a blasphemy(supported by Genesis 18:12-18:15)
Genesis 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Genesis 18:13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
Genesis 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
Genesis 18:15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
If you accept the above 3 premises, you accept that the Trinity, and all Churches stemming from the Nicene Creed that teach the Trinity commit blasphemy.
Conclusion
I have made an attempt to present from first principles why I do not believe the Trinity holds up to scrutiny when contrasted against Scripture. This position is heresy to the Christian Church, as it goes against the Nicene Creed, but the Nicene Creed is not the inspired word of God, and as such a proper follower of Christ follows scripture, and not doctrine. It's not a surprise this issues arises, the Nicene Creed itself is formed out of the original schisms of the Church, and is a result of political manipulation by multiple actors.
As a final note, one other core assumption here, that Trinitarians take for granted is the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, which itself comes from the Council of Constantinople(but this is an area I need to research myself more, so I present this as an assumption. It's an assumption that Trinitarians take for granted, so for the previous arguments it does not present a strong issue).