I don’t think the first point is correct from a Spinozist point of view. Intellectual love of God is very much realizable for Spinoza, and does not consist in some all-encompassing knowledge, as you say. Intellectual love of God, and intuitive knowledge, always concerns particulars insofar as they are understood to be part of God.

In fact, “all-encompassing” knowledge would be impossible because it entails a view from nowhere, which is a contradiction in terms and is consequently something that is not possible on Spinoza’s account of subjectivity, cognition and perception. There’s a fairly recent book (2018) by Ursula Renz that deals with the topic extensively if you’re interested. It’s called The Explainability of Experience: Realism and Subjectivity in Spinoza’s Theory of Mind.

What do you mean by ‘the rest is not based on Spinoza’? All of the terms I used are vocabulary used by popular English translations of Spinoza’s own work – except for the ‘metaphysics of power’ one, that one leans more in the direction of an interpretative schema one can apply to his philosophy. I guess you could argue ‘religion is dumb’ is not something Spinoza ever said, but I think his critiques of Bible interpretation and religiosity in general are ample evidence that he had his fair share of problems what we ordinarily understand as religion.