The Trinity

 

 

(The following was taken from http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html.)

 

Many of the Patristic writers denied the equality of the Son with the Father. Similarly their logic denies co-eternality. The relevant passages are as follows.

Justin

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is therein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Apol. I, xiii)

And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word [or logos], who is also the Son. (Apol. I, xxxii)

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God, as anything else than the Word [or logos], who is also the firstborn of God. (Apol. I, xxxiii)

 

Thus Justin thinks of the Logos as an emanation of God, which is capable of individuation to embrace the concept of the Spirit in general and Christ in particular.

 

Hippolytus says and most significantly:

Now, that Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But he makes his statement thus: "When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's." For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that the Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. (Hippolytus repeats this opinion in his summary, Book X.) (Con. Noet, n. 14, "The Refutation of All Heresies", Bk. IX, Ch. V, ANF, Vol. V, pp. 127-128);

 

It is with this writer that we first develop the error that Christ was the only emanation of the Father. The other elements of the heavenly Host are said to be creations of the Son and thus do not share in the divine nature as does the Son. Now this is the basic error upon which the doctrine of the Trinity began to be built. The elohim as was demonstrated from the biblical context are a multiple Host of which the Lamb is the High Priest. He is one of them as a fellow or comrade, even though all of the hierarchical structure was created by, or in him and for him (Col. 1:15).

 

The saints likewise become companions to Christ from Hebrews 3:14 and hence brothers to the Host (Rev. 12:10) and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). The heavens, all things that were, referred to as being created by the Son, are the spiritual and physical structures. This is the intent of the references at John 1:3 regarding the creation and 1Corinthians 8:6 regarding the universe (or ta panta) and humans. Colossians 1:15-17 specifically allocates the creation of all things visible and invisible. The creation of thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, through him and for him, cannot refer to the Council of the Elohim. The creation by Christ of the lordships (or kuriotetes) is not of the entities.

 

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (N.C.E.) article Trinity, Holy, Vol. XIV, McGraw Hill, N.Y., 1967, p. 296 makes the most extraordinary assertion concerning the doctrine of Hippolytus.

Hippolytus in his refutation of Noetus (10) and the exaggerated identification of Christ with the Father, insists that God was multiple from the beginning.

 

This is simply false from a comparison with the actual text of Hippolytus (C. Noetus 10) above.

The first instance of a reference to the Christian Godhead as three entities was by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 CE) who used the term trias of which the Latin trinitas is held to be a translation. The term was used where he spoke of the trias of God, His Word and His Wisdom (Theophilus to Autolycus. The ANF here translates the word trias as trinity). The next instance of the use of the term is by Tertullian (De Pud, c. xxi, P.G., II, 1026). Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three 'persons', but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570). The nearest equivalent to the Nicene doctrine did not occur until proposed by the Roman Bishop Dionysius (CE 262) who was a Greek by birth. He was concerned to eliminate the process of reducing the three entities to separate Gods (Schaff, ibid.).

 

The assertion that God is an entity comprising two beings and a persona as a spirit or power, which emanates from one or both is a later fourth, fifth and sixth century Trinitarian assertion. The assertion was made in modification of an original trias (above) and abandoned as inadequate. Both the triune cosmology and the Trinity, as it is now understood are biblically unsound.

The concept of the trinity may be defined in two ways as

1. "Three Persons who are equally possessed of the divine nature". This is held to have been the dominant view since the Councils of Nicæa and Constantinople.

2. The Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father who is the sole source of Godhead. This was the prevalent view of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Church generally up until Nicæa (c. 325 CE) (see G.H. Joyce, The Catholic Encyc. (C.E.) article ‘Trinity’, Vol. XV, p. 51).

 

The doctrine of the Trinity rests on a series of false assumptions made contrary to biblical evidence. The two major false assumptions, which are evident from the quotes herein, are:

· that the terms translated God are confined to one, two or three entities or hypostases; and

· that Christ is God co-eternally and co-equally as God the Father is God.

 

The formation of Islam was inevitable. By 632 CE, the groundwork was set for a division of theology and Monotheism that would gradually become so estranged that the greatest Holocaust in history is shortly to burst upon us. The perpetrators are the Trinitarian, Hadithic and Talmudic Scholars, who have lied and distorted the history of religion for their own ends and killed everyone who spoke the truth about the original faith and tried to follow that faith once delivered to the saints.

 

Irenæus says of God:

For He commanded, and they were created; He spake and they were made. Whom therefore did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom, He says, the heavens were established and all their power by the breath of His mouth [Ps. 33:6]. (Adv. haer. III, viii, 3)

 

Irenæus held that:

It is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God.... But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things, which have been made by Him (ibid.).

 

Irenæus extended the capacity to become God (theos or elohim) to the Logos here as distinct from the other things established (ibid.). He had already established the position of God and the Son and those of the adoption as theoi or elohim and all sons of God from Book III, Chapter VI.

 

Tertullian holds from Against (Adv.) Praxeas that:

This one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made...All are of one, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons- the Father, the Son and the Holy [Spirit]: three however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power inasmuch as He is One God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy [Spirit]... (II);

 

Tertullian also says that the Father raised the Son from the dead (II). Thus Tertullian makes important distinctions in the interrelationship of the three entities, which are aspects of the operation of God in degree. The Son and the Spirit are processions from the Father and subordinate aspects of His manifestation. Tertullian gave the Trinity a numerical order and distribution (III). He also held that the Monarchy of God came from the Father (III). But that it was equally the Son's being held by both (III) being committed to the Son by the Father (IV).

 

Tertullian held that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. Tertullian holds (IV) that the Father and the Son are two separate persons. Thus, it might be asserted that true Binitarianism commences with Tertullian.

 

It has been seen from earlier development, and above, that the Bible and the early Church theologians were subordinationist and Unitarian. God the Father was the God and Father of the Messiah who was the firstborn of many brothers (Rom. 8:29). The Holy Spirit is the mechanism by which all the Sons of God, the angels included, reach this position of unity with God. Christ was one of a multitude of the spiritual Sons of God, but he was the only born (monogenes) (Son of) God, the first begotten (prototokos) of the heavenly Host as the high priest of the elohim.

 

This understanding began to be lost through the syncretism of the early Church.

 

The major assumption of modern day Christianity is that God exists as three entities or hypostases. The three entities are described as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whether or not they are described as persons. The three entities are said to form a Trinity.

 

Another equally false assumption is that the early Church was Binitarian rather than Trinitarian. This is to say that Christ, while being subordinate, was nevertheless co-eternal. There were thus two true Gods existing side by side as Father and Son. This is what is known anciently as the Dual Power Heresy. This contravenes the testimony of John (17:3 and 1Jn. 5:20) who holds that there is only One True God and that Jesus Christ is His son. Also the writings of Paul hold that only God is immortal from 1Timothy 6:16. The understanding of John and Paul and the other apostles was also held by the disciples of John and their heirs.

 

The assertion that God is confined to three entities each being co-eternal and co-equal was not the understanding of the Apostolic and early Church. The concept of a Godhead of three beings preceded Christ by many centuries. There is no doubt that the triune god is found among the earliest civilisations and is known to extend east into Asia. These concepts entered Christianity largely through the Greeks and their influence on the Romans.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that Irenæus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 & 5 – thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church. This was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenæus and on into the second and subsequent centuries. (unquote)

 

I would conclude by saying that Jesus Christ is God.  However He is not an hypostasis--that is he is not a person separate from the Father.  He is YHVH, as the Father is YHVH.  He is Eloah: the Son is his "express image."  He will be subject to the Father "that God may be all in all" (2 Corinthians 15:28).

 

The Kenites love that most Christians worship the Trinity; for the Trinity points to Lucifer their father, Cain his son, and Eve (Cain's mother) .  Thus the Trinity (in the popular sense of that word) is a corruption of God revealing himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Jesus is often identified as the "angel of the LORD" (Exodus 3:2).  And we have in Isaiah 63:9, "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old."

Jesus and God are a monad.

 

 

 

 

 

"Arianism" Vs. Trinitarianism

"(4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest." (a quote from one of Arias' letters)

The passage below I lifted from patmospapers.com.

In actuality, by the year 508, it had been more than a century since the term "Arian" meant a follower of Arius. At this point "Arian" simply meant "non-trinitarian."
So the year 508 brings us to a showdown between Trinitarianism and non-Trinitarianism."For the first time the diffusion of belief in the nature of the Godhead became the avowed pretext for the invasion of a neighboring territory." Henry Hart Milman, History of Latin Christianity, p.353.It was in the year 507 that Clovis and his Frankish army met the army of the Visigoths under their king, Alaric II. Alaric, realizing his weakness, tried to delay the confrontation, hoping help would come from Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths. But no help came, and soon the Visigoths were in flight, and Alaric was slain."The victorious Franks pursued them as far as Bordeaux, where Clovis passed the winter, while Theoderic, his son, was overrunning Auvergne, Quincy, and Rovergne. The Goths, whose new king was a minor, made no further resistance; and in the following year the Salian chief took possession of the royal treasure at Toulouse. He also took the town of Angouleme." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 87."A. D. 508. A short time after these events, Clovis received the titles and dignity of Roman Patricius and Consul from the Greek Emperor Anastasius." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 88."In 508 Clovis received at Tours the insignia of the consulship from the eastern emperor Anastasius." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Clovis," Vol. VI, p. 563.Historians who give only brief treatment to this war generally focus on the year 507, during which Alaric was killed. Yet, as the above references correctly indicate, the Franks continued their conquest of Visigothic territory until well into the year 508. The conclusion of the war, and the imperial recognition of it, occurred in the year 508."Nor was his a temporary conquest. The kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived, who were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to be the religion of these great realms." Richard W. Church, The Beginning of the Middle Ages, pp. 38, 39."Thus in A.D. 508 terminated united resistance to the development of the papacy. The question of supremacy between Frank and Goth, between the Catholic and Arian religions, had then been settled in favor of the Catholics." Daniel and the Revelation, 1944 ed., p. 330."Thus when Clovis and the Franks defeated the Arian Visigoths and drove them into Spain, it was also a theological victory for the bishop of Rome." William H. Shea, Bible Amplifier - Daniel 7-12, p. 220."Thus was the bloody course of Clovis glorified by the Catholic writers, as the triumph of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity over Arianism." A. T. Jones, The Two Republics, p. 528.

A distinction must be made between the teachings of Arius in the early fourth century and the so-called "arianism" of the fifth and sixth centuries. Arius, whose views were rejected by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, taught that Jesus, being totally and essentially distinct from the Father, "does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God." The prevailing position at Nicea, on the other hand, taught that Jesus was begotten of the Father's substance. See a summary of the Nicene controversy. During the half-century following the Council of Nicea, the theological politics experienced a gradual evolution, culminating in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, which declared the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three separate, identical beings, "truly distinct one from another" (Handbook for Today's Catholic), yet forming one God. Those who continued to hold that the Son is begotten "of the substance of the Father" as had been declared at Nicea, were now labeled as "Arians." The Goths and other Germanic Christians of the fifth and sixth centuries, although they were not a part of the 4th century debates, were classified in this category.

Clovis' object was to establish the Creed of Constantinople throughout Europe through the armed conquest of all territories held by the "Arian" Goths. The most decisive point in his campaign was the defeat and expulsion of the Visigoths from Gaul in the war of A.D. 507/508. (unquote)

Anybody who worships a Triune God (the Trinity) is worshipping Satan.

Jews

 

 

Dwight Eisenhower (known in his West Point days as the "terrible Swedish-Jew") was responsible for the deaths of about 1,250,000 German prisoners of war. General Eisenhower deliberately deprived these men of food, so they starved to death. Apparently the Allied soldiers--who were the guards--did not question the order to deny them nourishment. (Whereas there were never more than 600,000 Jews in Europe when the Nazis came to power in Germany.)

"God, I hate the Germans..." --Dwight David Eisenhower
in a letter to his wife in September, 1944

The city of Gotha is mostly known to Americans, if at all, as the first headquarters of the American Army, set up by General Eisenhower in April 1945, and as the site of one of the Prisoner of War camps where captured German soldiers were treated in a barbaric fashion with total disregard to the rules of civilized warfare. Eisenhower mentioned Gotha in his book "Crusade in Europe," as the nearest city to the "horror camp" at Ohrdruf-Nord, the first concentration camp to be discovered by American soldiers in April 1945, but he failed to mention his own notorious POW camp located near Gotha.

The impressions of a British sailor given here without alteration:

"I took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk. Our soldiers felt very badly. I helped to fish out Germans from the sunken Bismarck, which received the greatest number of torpedoes in history. I saw the population of Malta sitting in the cellars for many weeks. I saw Malta being bombed incessantly and deafened by explosions of bombs and shells. They were exhausted from constant explosions and alarms. I lived through the sinking of my own ship. I know about jumping into the water at night, dark and without bottom, and the terrifying shouts for help of the drow- ning, and then the boat, and looking for the rescue ship. It was a nightmare. I drove German prisoners captured during the invasion of Normandy. They were almost dying from fear. But all that is nothing. The real, terrible, unspeakable fear I saw during the convoying and repatriation of people to Soviet Russia. They were becoming white, green and gray with the fear that took hold of them. When we arrived at the port and were handing them over to the Russians, the repatriates were fainting and losing their senses. And only now I know what a man's fear is who lived through hell, and that it is nothing compared to the fear of a man who is returning to the Soviet hell."

Old General [Ernst] Koestring, in a conversation with an American colonel, had allegedly said:

"We Germans, owing to our lack of reason, our limitless appetite, inability and ignorance, have lost the greatest capital that existed and can exist in the fight against Bolshevism. In the imagination of countless Russians we have thrown the picture of European culture into the mud. And yet, we have left certain capital which in future could grow. You will not understand me today when I tell you that during the last few weeks you have destroyed this capital for the second time, not only in the material sense, but also in the souls of all those who had counted on your help and understanding after the Germans let them down. It may easily happen that in the near future you will be calling for what is now perishing."(79)

Kenites: A History

"And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab." (1 Chronicles 2:55)

Who are the Kenites?  They are the sons of Cain, of course.  And who was Cain's father?  Why Satan of course.

"1The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, 2Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink."  (Jeremiah 35)  It takes discipline not to drink alcohol.  Alcohol somewhat deters mental capacity.  The Kenites are very intelligent--they have to be, if they are to rule this world system on the behalf of their father.

  "3Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; 4And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: 5And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. 6But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: 7Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. 8Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; 9Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: 10But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem."  Note that the Rechabites say that they are not to engage in any kind of farming and neither are they to tend vineyards.  What does that remind you of?  Why Genesis 4:12 of course: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

Skipping to the end of Jeremiah 35 we get: "18And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: 19Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever." (Jeremiah 35)  So this is how the Kenites joined themselves to Israel--Judah specifically. 

And it would be the remnant of Judah who would retain the law and the prophets: King Hezekiah requested of Isaiah: "4It may be the LORD thy God will hear all the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God; and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left." (2 Kings 19)  You see most of the Judahites had been removed from the land earlier by the Assyrians: "3Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." (2 Kings 18)  Only the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Lachish remained. The rest of Judah would eventually end up in Europe and become known today as Germany (Think Jutes.).  I've heard that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until after the original (authorized) edition of the KJV was published in 1611.  I can see how the introduction of this word into the vernacular and the literature has only served to further cause confusion (babel--Babylon, the city founded by Cain in the 4th millennium BC) concerning the whole matter of the Jews.

"33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." (Matthew 21)  Satan hates God and wants to take his place; Lucifer's children the Kenites (Pharisees, most of them) want to take the place of God's children (Israel: Germany, England, USA (those Americans of Anglo-Saxon/European descent), Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Russia, and a few other nations of Europe).  The sons of Cain have succeeded in deceiving the world into believing that they are the Jews--that the Edomite Jewish "State of Israel" is the re-gathering of Israel.  And they have garnered sympathy for having survived a holocaust that never happened. 

 

"24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13)  The Kenites (tares) would be enter-twined with (true) Israel until Jesus' return.

 

The Aryans: On the Wrong Side of History

(Sometimes you may--like the masked man (Spokesman) above--lose your cool because you've come to realize that you're on the "wrong" side--and that the vast majority of the rest of the world has been ensorcelled.  That and then there are those who don't care.  And it's damn near impossible to wake them up.  Of course the ones who do care only think they're awake!)

To continue from where I left off in my last post, if it is true that the Noachides (Aryans) possessed atomic weapons--how come they didn't use them on the Kenite Babylonian Empire proper?  Well you have the case of the US (which was on the "right" side) during World War II.  America only had two atomic bombs at the time.  So it could be that the Noachides had only enough uranium and/or plutonium for one or two such weapons--and they used said weapons already (one of them on Mohenjo-daro).

The right side--the actual right side--has come to be painted as evil by history.  Perhaps we can go all the way back to the fourteenth millennium BC?--when the war between Atlantis and the Rama Empire was fought, which is spoken of in the Mahabharata.  At this time two of the sections of Triple Town were floating in the sky--above the third section that was on the land.  (Atlantis at one of those advanced eras in the course of its existence.)  Since both sides here can be considered as "Aryan," this conflict will not be pertinent to this discussion.

Not long after this we move ahead to the thirteenth millennium BC (when we still have thawing ice) when the Ramayana war occurred.  Rama was an Aryan.  If his enemy, the "demon" Ravana, was not Aryan--then he was at least an Aryanized king.  So neither is this war pertinent.

After that we have the Atlantis/Athens War recounted by Plato in Timaeus (about 9600 BC).  (Atlantis at this time was still recovering from the above major war with Rama (Bharata)--therefore the Atlanteans were not as advanced technologically but were becoming a superpower again.  Elohim judged them and their island disappeared under the Atlantic waves.)  Again both sides may be considered as Aryan.  So no pertinence. 

Next we have the Mahabharata war (5561 BC).  The Pandavas were Aryans and these Aryans were losing ground in Northern India; the Kauravas were mostly not Aryans, but their leadership may very well have been Aryans.  So the Pandavas were the newer Aryans in Bharata (dwelling along the Yamuna and Ganges Rivers), if you will.  Thus this war is not pertinent.

Further on we come to the Noachide/Kenite War.  Here at least the Babylonian leadership (Kenites) were Aryans.  Today people would probably judge the Noachides wrongly for having resorted to atomic warfare against the Kenite-controlled Harrapans: Noah and his progeny only acted out of self-defense.

Let us move on to the Great Conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (circa 1400 BC).  Many people today believe that YHVH is a cruel God because he commanded his elect angels (Israel) to annihilate the Canaanites.  People today (most of whom are under a glamour), who do not identify themselves as "Christian," do not understand the context in which this war was executed.  And most Christians defend the actions of those ancient Israelites from the (false) moral high ground of Zionism: the [fake] Jews are God's people, and therefore we are to support them (the State of Israel)!

Now we arrive at the Great War for Survival of the True Jews, that being Germany (the re-gathered Tribe of Judah) during World War II.  No it was not the "Great Patriotic War."  Adolf Hitler and the rest of the German leadership realized the grave threat they faced.  That's why the German people voted the Nazi Party into power in the 1930s.  These who were among the fairest of the volk may not have fully comprehended the esoteric or recondite nature of the threat (that being the Synagogue of Satan--Revelation 2:9 and 3:9), but they could perceive that things just were not right somehow--what with high unemployment that followed upon the horrendous loss of life amidst the trenches of the Western Front (and the subsequent humiliation that was the Treaty of Versailles).

The Soviet power was raised up by the Bankers to crush the growing might of Germany.  Hitler was doing something blasphemous: he had outlawed usury.  And he had the audacity to rebuild the military into the Wehrmacht (Defense Force).  Unfortunately Hitler made some disastrous decisions.  In that Blitzkrieg into the USSR (1941) the road to Moscow lay wide open.  He let that window of fantastic opportunity slip out of his and the German people's hands.  (The Reichsvolk had organized themselves along military lines, for they had to take extreme measures (prejudice) against the immense Kenite/Edomite/Communist endeavor to end their happiness.)  The atrocities that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS committed were justified.  And we know that millions of Germans (both soldiers and civilians) were murdered in the end.