Begotten, Not Made: The Historical EVIDENCE Behind Jesus Christ

In 305 BCE, Ptolemy first became the king of Egypt and established the Ptolemaic dynasty. His title was Soter, meaning Savior or Deliverer, the same Greek root preserved in the theological term Soteriorology, which is the doctrine or study of salvation. To date, Savior immediately brings Jesus Christ to mind. But in the ancient political world, the title could belong to a king, ruler, or military leader credited with protecting or delivering a people. Ptolemy Soter was a flesh and blood ruler exercising earthly power within an Egyptian system where political and sacred authority were intertwined. The ruler could possess religious legitimacy, the priesthood could legitimize the ruler, and each institution could reinforce the other. Centuries later, the relationship between earthly and religious authority becomes important again when Constantine intervenes in the dispute over Christ. But our chain begins with a man, Ptolemy Soter, the Savior. Ptolemy entered Egypt through the conquest of Alexander the Great. After Alexander died in 323 BCE, his empire was divided among his generals, and Ptolemy took control of Egypt before establishing a dynasty that would rule for nearly three centuries. A Greek ruling class was now governing an ancient African civilization with its own temples, priesthood, gods, and traditions of sacred kingship. The pharaoh was more than a political ruler. The office-carriage sacred authority and concepts such as divine kingship, Son of God, Lord, and Savior already existed within these older political and religious systems. Ptolemy was one who sought after this religious authority. The Memphis priesthood consecrated him within the pharaonic system, and an image identified as Serapis was made in his honor. Ptolemy was considered Soter, the Savior, and the religious images of Serapis are directly connected to him. Serapis emerged from an older Egyptian religious foundation. Osiris was associated with kingship, death, regeneration, and the afterlife, while Apis was the sacred bull particularly associated with Memphis. When the Ptolemies blended Osiris with Apis the bull, they created Osirapis, which became Serapis. With this blend, the presentation of the deity also changed. Rather than appearing exclusively through traditional Egyptian iconography, Greco-Roman Serapis became anthropomorphic. A mature, long-haired, bearded man sometimes seemed depicted with the bottom half of a serpent, and Serapis was very recognizable within the Greek cultural world. Serapis also left a physical footprint in the form of statues, busts, inscriptions, temples, and archaeological remains that predate the Council of Nicaea by centuries. If you place the Greco-Roman Serapis beside the later traditional Western image of Jesus Christ, the visual similarities are immediately apparent. Long hair, a full beard, a mature male face, and Greco-Roman divine presentation. Also, Jesus is associated with serpent symbolism. But resemblance alone is not the strongest point. It is a fact that the cult of Serapis, Serapis temples, Serapis statues, and physical representations existed before Christianity. All of the titles that was given to Jesus Christ belonged to Serapis first. Titles and attributes like Savior, Divine Son, Healing, Redemption, Resurrection, The Good Shepherd, and Death and Rebirth. All of those titles and attributes belonged to Serapis first. That's important. It's a chronological argument. If these attributes can be documented in an older tradition, that evidence must be considered before treating them as originating with Christianity. Another one of the features of the older religious spiritual system is the serpent. Serpent symbolism existed in Egypt for centuries. Represent concepts such as divine authority, protection, fertility, danger, regeneration, resurrection, and sacred power. The regenerative symbolism is particularly important because a serpent sheds its skin and emerges renewed, making it a natural symbol of renewal within cultures already concerned with death, regeneration, and continuing life after death. So, serpent symbolism did not begin with Christianity. The biblical tradition places Moses in Egypt, and the Book of Acts describes him as being learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians. The Hebrew scriptures then preserve a striking serpent tradition. In Numbers, Moses is instructed to make a fairy serpent and place it upon a pole so that those who look upon it can live. 2 Kings later identifies the bronze serpent as Nahushtin and describes its destruction after people began burning incense to it. So, we see that Moses learned the concept of resurrection from Egypt. They took what they learned from the Egyptians and corrupted it. The corrupted spiritual system of the ancient world is what we're calling modern religion today. And in modern religion, everyone worships graven images that originated through world conquest. These images and statues were forced upon people. It's important to see the influence of Egypt on Western culture. Before Christ, the two symbols that we see Christians associated with is a bull and a serpent, and that was under Moses. Why a bull and a serpent? It goes back to Apis, the bull, and Osiris. Osiris and Apis make Serapis. We read in the Bible that Christians were moving away from the worship of the golden calf and that Christians were moving away from the serpent symbolism. And we even see that the Western world started to demonize Egypt, serpent symbolism, and the golden calf or bull symbolism. All of this is associated with the devil now in the Western world. But it's important to note that the early roots of Christianity has these exact symbols as the symbols of resurrection because these were the original symbols of resurrection in Egypt. They're telling us that Christians later moved away from these symbols because these symbols were so evil. But the truth is that Ptolemies, the Christians, actually learned all of this knowledge from the Egyptians and corrupted it. And they didn't start off with Jesus at first. They adopted the symbols in the same form that they existed in in Egypt. And that's why one of the forefathers of Christianity who predates Christ being Moses is associated with two prevalent symbols, a bull and a serpent. Now, Christians didn't leave away from these symbols because those symbols were evil all of a sudden. In fact, they didn't move away from those symbols at all. The bull and the serpent became Serapis aka Jesus Christ in the modern world today. So if you want to know the truth about what happened to the original system that Moses was under, you got to first see the lie that someone just all of a sudden woke up and said, you know what? These symbols are evil, man. They were plagiarizing the ancient spiritual system, the symbols, the concepts, watering them down and reinventing that whole system to direct our energy toward earthly authorities, which is what Ptolemy is, the Savior. So after Moses, Jesus Christ came. What was happening in real life, real history, is that huge councils were being called by the Ptolemies, Constantine, etc. And what was happening at these councils is that they were taking the symbols of the ancient world and transforming them into the modern religious entities that we see today, Jesus Christ in particular. But of course, they're not going to tell real history, so they forged a new history, and that history is summed up as the Bible. And in this new historical account called a Bible, they were prophesying the coming of Christ while at the same time in real life calling councils to transform Serapis into Christ. The Bible is a story that's replacing the real history of how we actually get Christ. People think they literally get Christ through a virgin birth, but the real history shows that they got Christ through the Council of Nicaea, the long process of political councils, etc. Ptolemy was very thirsty for power in this newfound world that they had stumbled into, and that's why he didn't hesitate to start making himself the image of salvation and the Savior and deifying himself in that system. Basically, most of people that look like me are worshipping the image of Ptolemy or the image of their oppressor unknowingly. In Egypt, the sacred serpent of resurrection was elevated upon a pole, and that was to show energy flowing up and down the spinal column, what many refer to as the kundalini energy. To the ancients, this was the of the soul, also known as the central nervous system. It's important to realize that these symbols were associated with very advanced spiritual sciences before they were watered down into literal concepts under the Ptolemies. In Egypt, we see that the sacred serpent often appeared on a staff, and this was later adopted by Moses. The Gospel of John directly connects this older tradition and image with Christ. In the Gospel of John, it says, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the Son of Man must likewise be lifted up. In a lot of New Age communities, you will hear terms like the kundalini must be risen. You will hear terms like we must raise up our frequency or our vibration. These words like frequency, vibration, kundalini, are synonyms for the soul within man, which was represented by the serpent. The ancients were basically personifying a sine wave. The ancients saw the spirit as a sine wave of invisible, cymatic energy that governs the body, and this is why the word spirit and the word spiral sound similar. So this spiral of energy again, it was represented by the serpent. It's this energy within man that the ancestors said must rise up to higher realms. So the concept of resurrection to the ancients was the spirit within man exiting the body and ascending up to a higher plane of existence. So since the word spirit is energy, vibration, frequency, we still hear sayings like your frequency must be raised up, your energy must be raised up, your vibration must be raised up, which is just a modern way of saying the soul within man must ascend. But when this was changed, it was just turned into Jesus must be lifted up on the cross, and through Jesus's death, humanity can ascend to higher realms or heaven. But with this new revised form of the ancient system, it turns into servitude and us turning away our energy over to earthly authorities. It turns into a system where we are indebted and we have to pay for salvation by service. And what are we serving? The image of Ptolemy. The modern image of Jesus Christ is just a revised image of Ptolemy. When the Ptolemies decided that it would be better to move away from the ancient anthropomorphic style deities, and that by just making the deity fully human, you can attract more people. I guess they were right. So it's important to note that in the old system, all of the knowledge was directly tied to the soul within man. This is what many called a knowledge of self. Today, most of us don't have knowledge of self. We have religious indoctrination, and that's due to the Ptolemies. So we went from serpent and serpent symbolism to a humanized deity with blonde hair and blue eyes. Older religions did openly combine human, animal, and serpentine forms, but Greco-Roman Serapis became increasingly human. That humanized form becomes significant when compared with the later traditional Jesus. So the argument is larger than simply saying Serapis looks like Jesus. Material evidence forms another part of the argument. Ptolemy and Constantine left coins, images, inscriptions, and historical records, while Serapis survives through statues, busts, temples, and other archaeological remains. So compare that physical footprint with the extraordinary claims surrounding Jesus. Miraculous healings, feeding thousands from just a few fish and some loaves, walking on water, turning water into wine, and resurrection from the dead. Yet there is no known contemporary coin or authenticated contemporary portrait of Jesus, no physical object universally established as belonging to him, and no universally identified remains or authenticated tomb containing his body. But all of the evidence traces back to Ptolemy, which there's tons of physical evidence for. So if you only deal with the biblical history, then you never solve the mystery. Not every ancient person leaves behind identifiable physical artifacts. The point is the distinction between what can be materially demonstrated and what later generations receive primarily through textual and religious tradition. That distinction becomes especially important when an institution eventually defines exactly what Christ is. Before Nicaea, a correspondence preserved under the name of Emperor Hadrian describes the religious environment of Alexandria using remarkable language. The passage describes worshippers of Serapis as Christians and connects devotees of Serapis with the title Bishops of Christ. Alexandria contained Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, Roman, and Christian traditions within the same major religious and intellectual center. The preserved Hadrian passage therefore places Serapis, Christians, and Christ terminology unusually close together long before Nicaea. Christ is not a surname. The Greek word Christos means anointed, so it's a title. This distinction matters because an older appearance of Christ terminology does not automatically establish the complete later identity of Jesus Christ. We must distinguish the title from the theological figure eventually attached to it. By the early 4th century, Christians themselves were still fighting over exactly what that figure was. There was a man by the name of Arius. He lived approximately from 256 to 336 CE, and he became the central figure in a major Christian dispute over whether the Son was eternal, created, equal to the Father, or had a beginning. The position associated with Arius can be summarized in the following statements. There was a time when he was not. We're talking about Jesus. There was a time before he was begotten when he was not. These are statements made by Arius concerning this new image, this statue that was made in honor of Ptolemy. If there was a time when the Son of Man did not exist, then the Son had an origin and could not have been eternally identical with the Father. That leads directly to the question Nicaea would confront. Was the Son made, or was he begotten? During the Council of Nicaea, it was a very divisive time in the world for early Christians. This was a new religion that was being born out of a lot of older systems that were still existing while these councils were going on. So, this created confusion because you have this new religious system that's incorporating a lot of these different concepts from around it. The central figure of this religious system, the deity that's in question, there was conflict among early Christians on the origins of this deity. Now, we know the true origins of the deity. It all goes back to Ptolemy Sotep, an earthly man. But over time, Ptolemy would become deified in mythology as your modern-day savior that you know as Jesus Christ. What was going on during this time, you had certain groups that were saying Jesus was simply created by God the Father, and you had some groups that were saying he was born from a woman. It's important to know that the word Virgin in the Bible when dealing with the Virgin Mary, it never meant a woman that never had sex. The word Virgin in the Bible, in the context that it was being used, it is the Hebrew word Alma, which basically just means a young woman. So, it didn't inherently mean a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. That's important because remember that the original roots of Jesus trace back to Ptolemy, and Ptolemy is a mortal man that was begotten from a woman. That fact was still known in a lot of early Christian sects. It wasn't that many generations back where people were literally bowing down to a statue that everyone knew was made in the image of Ptolemy. So, they got rid of those statues because they came with a new history. They gave Ptolemy a new history, and Ptolemy's new history is the story of Jesus Christ's life. So, Ptolemy, the Savior, instead of them telling us the truth about how we became Christians by force and by conquest, they're making it like it wasn't by force. It's something you chose on your own will because you wanted to escape hell's fires and you accepted Jesus Christ as a Savior to die for your sins. But if we knew the truth about the image of Jesus Christ, the concept of salvation, if we research soteriology, it leads back to Sotep, Ptolemy, not to a man on a cross. And how can people this evil be the ones to create the God that's gonna give us salvation and help us to heaven and help us to be righteous people? The truth is, they can't. What they gave us was a barbaric whitewashed system in replace of our ancient spiritual systems. So, the controversies spread throughout Christian communities until Constantine became involved. Constantine was emperor, not merely a spectator to a theological argument. Divided bishops, congregations, and doctrines could create instability within an empire whose ruler wanted unity. So, Constantine summoned up all the bishops and in 325 CE, they assembled at Nicaea. Ecumenical councils dealt with doctrine and discipline, giving them the institutional ability to establish accepted belief, rejected belief, orthodoxy, and heresy. At Nicaea, one of the central controversies concerned Arius and the nature of Christ. The response produced one of Christianity's most important documents, the Nicaean Creed. The Creed declares belief in one Lord, Jesus Christ, and declares him as begotten of the Father, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. These phrases exist inside a controversy, but one distinction is particularly important to begotten and not made. To be begotten is to be brought forth through generations, while something made is created or constructed. So, why would bishops centuries later need to formally establish that Christ was begotten and not made if everyone already understood him simply as a man who had physically been born? Human beings do not ordinarily require institutional creeds establishing that they were born. A person who physically lived can potentially leave family, relationships, contemporary testimony, records, possessions, burials, inscriptions, correspondence, images, and archaeological evidence. Considering who Jesus was, in my opinion, there should be tons of physical evidence around for him. And don't y'all show me that shroud either. That's laughable. Yeah, folks, the shroud of Turin is not evidence. Now, let me be fair and say that not everybody is going to leave evidence behind, but Jesus ain't just a normal person. We talking about God in the flesh. This man did miracles that no human can do. So, even though not every ancient person leaves all of this evidence behind, the basic distinction remains. A human being is born, a statue is made, and before Nicaea, the older religious figure at the center of this investigation already existed through statues, busts, temples, and images of Serapis. So, this makes the wording that we see in this creed very significant. Begotten and not made, the developing Christian figure now possesses something different from a religious image. This is important because over time, they wanted to deify Ptolemy's legacy. That's how we get Jesus Christ today. What do I mean by deify his legacy? Ptolemy had earned the title of Savior, but if the true history of Ptolemy was being told, we would reject that title because he was a conqueror, an oppressor, and we would see that this idea of salvation was only exclusive to him and his empire, not for the people he conquered. The people he conquered is now honoring Ptolemy through the modern image of Jesus Christ. They would not be doing that if they knew who he really was. They would reject his title of Savior. But you accept Ptolemy as your Savior when you accept Christ as your God and your Lord and Savior. You do it ignorantly and unknowingly, and that's by design. Yeah, they don't care how they gain your consent as long as they gain it. This new, developing Christian figure now possesses something different from a religious image. Because at first, you had all of these different gods. In the Greek world, they didn't have nothing really in common with humans. They had a lot of attributes and traits that put them above humans. A lot of the gods were not begotten in the old Greek world. So what was going on? Constantine was saying, we need a rock star God. We need a God that people are going to accept. And the concept was simple. Let's humanize our God, and let's make our God more relatable to regular humans while still giving him attributes that make him distinct from regular humans. So just like every other human, Jesus was born through a mother. But unlike every other human, we are being told that his mother never had sexual intercourse, which the original story never say that because it all goes back to Ptolemy. So a human biography involving a mother, a miraculous conception, a birth, a ministry, a death, and a resurrection was given to this deity. So because the figure is presented as both human and divine, his entrance into human history occurs through supernatural birth. The creed then supplies the theological definition, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. And this is why beginning with the biblical birth story changes the investigation because that story isn't a legitimate account of history. It's just a story. When you go beyond the story to figure out how did Christ come to us? How did Christ end up on the earth? Or should I say how did the concept of Jesus Christ today end up on the earth? According to many Christians, the answer is easy. Some guy was born from a virgin, and he lived this extraordinary life that was documented in the Bible, and they accept that account of history. So in their mind, Jesus start with Mary. But to those who do research, we know Jesus start with Ptolemy. So we have to move backwards beyond the virgin birth narrative, Nicaea, and Hadrian, and return to Serapis and the older images of Ptolemy's Sotep. Instead of beginning with the man and asking how art is eventually representative, the argument should be whether an older religious image was eventually given the identity and biography of a man. That makes the distinction at Nicaea central. The end of the original Nicaean creed makes the controversy explicit by condemning those who say there was a time before he was begotten when he was not. He was made and not begotten, or that the son came into existence from things that did not previously exist. Why was this important? Because if the son came into existence from things that did not previously exist, then he could not be begotten. So Mary previously existed before Christ. This ties this fictitious deity to an earthly lineage. In the esoteric world, everyone know that all the energy we've given away in these religious systems is going to an oppressor. But in the religious world, they see this oppressor as a savior because of the new story and the bogus history that they've been given through the Bible. But I'm giving you the real history of how Jesus came to us. Compare those propositions with the Nicaean creed's response, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. The creed's language is therefore not random. It answers the controversy that was going on at that time. There was a lot of confusion among these early Christians. Arius represents resistance to the developing institutional definition that transformed the older made spiritual figures and symbols into an eternally divine and begotten Christ. Now, you don't have to accept that interpretation, but the document itself preserves the theological conflict over whether the Son had a beginning and how his existence was to be understood. Under the Ptolemies, political authority and sacred kingship operated together through the ruler and through the priesthood. Under Constantine, an emperor summons bishops whose counsel defines doctrine and condemns competing teachings. It's clear to see that during this time on the earth, there was no distinction between religious authority and political or earthly authority. It's the same way today for those that have eyes to see. The emperor, bishops, doctrine, and creed all converge around the definition of Christ. Even though the Savior may be placed in heaven, the institution defining the Savior remains on earth. Nicaea also regulated church organization and religious practice. Canon 20 addressed prayer posture by directing Christians to pray standing up rather than kneeling down on Sundays and during the Pentecost season, while the council was also connected with efforts to establish common observance concerning Easter. And that's very important because Easter looked totally different before the Ptolemies changed everything. It had nothing to do with bunny rabbits laying eggs. But what this shows you is that most of the things people are doing in the church, most of the traditions that they're carrying out, it comes through earthly authority and earthly canon. The question is, do you think these wicked men were inspired by God because then that would justify it? But if not, then God ain't got nothing to do with the traditions and practices that you guys are caught up in every day. These practices that are defining who you are, these practices that are defining your entire life around this central figure called Jesus Christ. Most of all of the things you're carrying out comes from earthly men, and none of it was requested by the true creator of the universe. Nicaea did not instantly produce universal Christian agreement. Arius was condemned. Exile and suppression entered the controversy, and disputes concerning the father and son continued through bishops, emperors, and later councils. So, Nicaea shouldn't be seen as the moment where all Christians all of a sudden started to believe the exact same thing. It was a major institutional moment in which one definition of Christ received formal authority. This is how orthodoxy develops. Competing interpretations confront one another. One receives institutional recognition, another becomes heresy, and the accepted definition eventually becomes inherited tradition and established doctrine. Later generations can recite the words but got not made without knowing the controversy that required those words. The creed is therefore both a statement of belief and a surviving record of the conflict that produced it. There's a word that all Christians use at the end of their prayer, Amen. Amen was a major Egyptian deity who became closely associated with Ra as Amun-Ra, while Amen became one of the most familiar words in Jewish and Christian prayer. So, this is another example of Egyptian influence on early Christians. The broader point is that empires and institutions can disappear, while older words, titles, images, and symbols survive. The same principle applies to visual symbolism. Long before Christianity, humans observed and personified natural forces, including the sun, moon, stars, air, water, earth, fire, birth, death, regeneration, and seasonal cycles. So, natural forces became symbols. Symbols received names and images. Images developed personalities and stories, and institutions eventually formed around those traditions. In the older spiritual systems, we knew that these were stories that had a deeper meaning encoded within them. Today, we don't know that. We take the stories at face value, and we take the stories as a legitimate account of history. By doing that, we miss all of the ancient knowledge that's encoded within these symbols. That was the whole point to begin with, to disconnect us from that wealth of knowledge that our ancestors spent a lot of time to pass down to us. They spent a lot of time carving symbols, compiling books in multiple libraries around the earth. Alexander burnt up most of those libraries. They got rid of a lot of that stuff, and they desecrated the symbols by translating them literally. And now people believe in fairy tale stories versus decoding the advanced spiritual science behind them. And that's a trick called inversion. That's an inversion tactic that the enemy used to disconnect us from our ancestors and from our true spiritual roots. So when you take what I'm saying into consideration, solar discs, radiance, and light surrounding divine figures therefore belong to a much older sacred visual language before similar imagery appeared in later Christian art. Over generations, the natural principle behind a can be forgotten while the personified figure remains. The representation becomes the object of worship, and religious institutions acquire authority over how that representation is understood. Now put the chronology together. Ancient Egypt already possessed sacred kingship, divine sonship, resurrection traditions, serpent symbolism, and elaborate religious imagery, way before Greek political power entered Egypt through Alexander's conquest. Ptolemy took control, became pharaoh, and carried the title of sotep, or savior. Our current understanding of salvation comes through Ptolemy. It's called soteriology. But when the Ptolemies arrived in Egypt, the Egyptians was teaching everyone that in order to be saved, one must raise their frequency. The Ptolemies corrupted that, and in the new modern version, which is religion, it's changed to Christ had to be raised in order for the world to be saved. So before that, everyone was working on themselves and trying to be good people because they wanted to raise their frequency in order to be saved. In the older system, it created a situation of personal accountability for your actions. In the new system, it created a system of servitude and paganism and blood sacrifice where we don't have to be held accountable for our actions. Our actions can be forgiven through a blood sacrifice, and we can be saved through the blood of Jesus. Now we have a middleman, a mediator, in between us and salvation. If a person really wants to be saved and they really believe in this bogus middleman, they will do whatever the earthly authorities over that middleman tell them to do for their salvation. That's how we get the church with all of these billions of people worshiping a literal image of Serapis, worshiping an image of Ptolemy's Soteriology, which is basically just an image of an oppressor, not a true representation of the true creator of the universe. So when the Egyptians took Osiris and Apis and created Osirapis or Serapis, instead of them having this half-bull, half-serpent deity, they humanized the form. One of the earliest versions was just half-man, half-serpent, which is a concept that's very common throughout Egypt, as you can see in the images. So the idea of Jesus being associated with a serpent all goes back to Serapis and the Egyptians' influence on the Greeks. So serpent symbolism already existed as an ancient representation of sacred power and regeneration, while the Hebrew scriptures preserve Moses' bronze serpent, and the Gospel of John later compares its elevation directly with Christ's. The Serapis cult and imagery predate Nicaea. The Hadrian passage is important because it places Serapis, Christians, and Christ's terminology within the same Alexandrian religious environment. Christian communities continue developing and eventually divide over the nature of Christ. So this history did not begin at Nicaea or with the biblical birth of Jesus. By 325 CE, titles and concepts such as Savior, Lord, Divine Sonship, and Sacred Kingship were already ancient, as were resurrection, regeneration. Serapis had also existed for centuries at the intersection of Egyptian religion, Greek imagery, and Ptolemaic political power before Christianity developed within that same Mediterranean world. Christian communities disagreed, their leaders debated, and their doctrines remained contested until imperial authority entered the dispute. And that's why the language of the Nicaean Creed matters. The statements preserve a conflict embedded within a much longer chronology. Ptolemy, Soter, Serapis, the older imagery, serpent symbolism, Christus, Hadrian, Arius, Constantine, Nicaea, and finally the Creed. The names, institutions, and political powers changed, but religious and earthly authority repeatedly intersected. A king could carry the title Savior, a pharaoh could possess sacred authority, an emperor could summon bishops, and an earthly council of mortal men could define the true nature of Christ. We're often told God created man, but when we do this research, we realize men created your gods. So later generations could then inherit those institutional definitions without encountering the history that preceded them. Once that chronology is restored, Nicaea no longer appears to be the beginning of the story. It becomes the point where older religious traditions, developing Christian theology, and Roman imperial authority converge around the institutional definition of Jesus Christ. Thanks for watching everybody. If you support the work, hype the video, like the video, share the video, and leave a comment, I will reply. If you want to support my work directly, you can join my Patreon, you can send a cash app, or you can simply become a channel member. Be sure to check the video description for all the ways you can support, and make sure you check out my other videos. Last but not least, don't forget to subscribe and hit that notification bell so you don't miss out. Peace. Much Love.