There’s something up with geometric shapes.
Someone once said signs and symbols rule the world.
The G in the Freemason logo means geometry and the logo is made with tools to make geometric shapes.
The other day a shill accidentally revealed the circle with the star sign extracts energy from people. Then he deleted his account.
That circle star and other shapes like the Saturn symbol are found in many car logos which are seen by all when they drive.
Rothvhild once made a forum posts and empathizes that nature doesn’t have straight lines but shapes do.
Words act as manifesting tools because what we speak we usually believe and the law of faith attracts what we say to us. Do shapes have a similar effect?
Even the hex shape on the North Pole of Saturn also appears as a cube. They say this shape is used to hex earth but how? The only thing I found is that the shape represent the pattern of the soul and that the cube represent a prison. They also have a square with a circle inside which represents caging the infinite soul.
Another shill once mentioned the triangle represents the minimum opening shape for a portal and that the points represents energy, knowledge and willpower.
Lastly Modevil Cathedrals were made in a particular shape on purpose by the knight Templar.
What’s going on with these specific shapes appearing everywhere? Are they energy extractors?
I know the loosh harvested is moved around by those obelisks so these occult shapes might be part of that system.
The gnostics were right if they said dividing God into three was polytheistic, but in those days there are several evidences that teachers knew the difference between tritheism and prototrinitarianism. Those tritheists who lurked were despised by Jew and Christian alike. The Jews wrote and recited the Birkat haMinim against these cultic tritheists (also ditheists) and other Judaizing sectarians, while the Christians ignored it because it didn't apply to them.
Also, no gnostics were murdered to my knowledge, you seem to be thinking of something else.
It's great to hear you contributed to M-theory and give some background. To the point at hand, if it's perspective that cognizes three, what happens when the One cognizes Himself? My answer is that He can cognize "Himself" as One, and He can also cognize "Himself Cognizing Himself" as Three (lover, love, beloved). One matter, two or three witnesses, is also the ancient rule. Therefore, we can cognize "God is not three" in your sense, but we need not contradict those who with different meaning are able to cognize "God is three".
"Christos" as used by Hebrew thinkers is exactly a translation of an ancient Hebrew term for the anointed ruler, used by David in 1000 BC without any Greek philosophy. It was never used for polytheism (except by the minor cults I allude to) and didn't connote or require any polytheism.
Nicea heard all the arguments and got 99% approval for its summary, with only three objectors who wouldn't budge, led by Arius. The minority's concerns were that what word by which we describe Jesus's "divine" nature as can only be a word that also applies to creation, because we have no word for the uncreated, only negations (a proper application of apophatic theology). This concern was not understood by the Niceans until much later, so the Arian churches continued to have gains in Western Europe for a couple centuries more because of calculated ambiguity on both sides.
Separately, the several Chalcedonian theology debates were closer to home and all the major wings retained their polities until in the 20th century they were all basically resolved semantically by agreement on essentials and liberty on understood frameworks of phrasing. I believe this is possible for those who continue Arian traditions today too. If you're interested in such a resolution, I'd suggest you first start by admitting the reality of what all the primitive Christians knew, the difference between polytheism and a monotheism that recognizes differences of cognition. Without making semantic adjustments for context your statement would not be read by trinitarians as truths or facts but as opinions and althist. The way to repair that breach is to speak honestly about what the prototrinitarians actually said, and the difference from what tritheists were separately accused of saying. Start with the fact that Paul was accused of polytheism for teaching "Jesus and Anastasia": that indicates what the true polytheists were actually teaching, by Paul being mistaken for one of them.
Again, Arius was a messenger, not the message. I feel no need to bring him up except in historic perspective as a victim of 'killing the messenger'.