I definitely have felt like Harry at times throughout this week and having these RCC and Orthodox things unveiled lol.
Mary : the Ark of the Covenant (long)
10,802 Views |
168 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Thaddeus73
Same guy but the 9th century date ain't right for the commentary on revelation. Read further down in wiki. St Andrew of Caesarea refers to him in his commentary on Revelation, and he died in 614 AD.
We don't have much of anything on most topics before Nicaea. So argument from silence on any topic pre 5th century is not very compelling, in my opinion.
Anyway - not arguing the point. I'm just saying the dual meaning seems to me to be on solid footing on many levels and doesn't seem to do any injury to the text.
We don't have much of anything on most topics before Nicaea. So argument from silence on any topic pre 5th century is not very compelling, in my opinion.
Anyway - not arguing the point. I'm just saying the dual meaning seems to me to be on solid footing on many levels and doesn't seem to do any injury to the text.
My problem with "THE WOMAN" being the Church is that Jesus, Mary's Son, founded the Church 33 years after birth. So if the woman is giving birth to Jesus, then I don't see how "The Woman" can be "The Church."Quote:
The woman as the church definitely makes a ton of sense to me, and clearly had plenty of ancient backers.
She can surely represent the Church, and she can represent Israel, but both Paul and James say that people in heaven wear crowns, not churches or countries...
Therefore, "The Woman" foretold in Genesis 3:15 has got to be Mary, the Mother of God...
One thing to consider - the church didn't begin in 33 AD but is the continuation of the assembly of Israel, God's faithful people.
Mary is the mother of the Church because Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Again it is a both/and and not an either/or. Also, as was prophesied in the temple a sword would pierce Mary's soul (Luke 2: 33-35):
While Mary may have been saved from the pains of labor in giving birth to Jesus, Our Blessed Mother was not spared the pains of a sword piercing her own soul at the evil she witnessed as her son conquered sin through his sacrifice for us on the cross.
So the Woman wearing the crown of 12 Stars is Mary, who is the mother of both Jesus and the Church, who is the Virgin daughter Zion and the Queen Mother of Heaven, the Theotokos and Ark of the covenant, the unwedded bride, and the Woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. Mary is all of the above and more. There is absolutely nothing ordinary about Mary. She is extraordinary in every way and is the exception because Jesus chose her and blessed her among all women who have or will ever live to be his only mother.
Quote:
"And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for
a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."
While Mary may have been saved from the pains of labor in giving birth to Jesus, Our Blessed Mother was not spared the pains of a sword piercing her own soul at the evil she witnessed as her son conquered sin through his sacrifice for us on the cross.
So the Woman wearing the crown of 12 Stars is Mary, who is the mother of both Jesus and the Church, who is the Virgin daughter Zion and the Queen Mother of Heaven, the Theotokos and Ark of the covenant, the unwedded bride, and the Woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. Mary is all of the above and more. There is absolutely nothing ordinary about Mary. She is extraordinary in every way and is the exception because Jesus chose her and blessed her among all women who have or will ever live to be his only mother.
Agree 100%...She is full of Grace, or the life of God. Jesus is who He is by His nature; His mother is who she is by His grace...Quote:
So the Woman wearing the crown of 12 Stars is Mary, who is the mother of both Jesus and the Church, who is the Virgin daughter Zion and the Queen Mother of Heaven, the Theotokos and Ark of the covenant, the unwedded bride, and the Woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. Mary is all of the above and more. There is absolutely nothing ordinary about Mary. She is extraordinary in every way and is the exception because Jesus chose her and blessed her among all women who have or will ever live to be his only mother.
We all are who we are because of God's grace. Mary was a human, full of God's grace. I am a human, full of God's grace.Thaddeus73 said:Agree 100%...She is full of Grace, or the life of God. Jesus is who He is by His nature; His mother is who she is by His grace...Quote:
So the Woman wearing the crown of 12 Stars is Mary, who is the mother of both Jesus and the Church, who is the Virgin daughter Zion and the Queen Mother of Heaven, the Theotokos and Ark of the covenant, the unwedded bride, and the Woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. Mary is all of the above and more. There is absolutely nothing ordinary about Mary. She is extraordinary in every way and is the exception because Jesus chose her and blessed her among all women who have or will ever live to be his only mother.
Pretty sure none of us sinners are full of grace..Maybe 50%, but certainly not 100%, otherwise we wouldn't sin, ever...Quote:
I am a human, full of God's grace.
Zobel said:
Same guy but the 9th century date ain't right for the commentary on revelation. Read further down in wiki. St Andrew of Caesarea refers to him in his commentary on Revelation, and he died in 614 AD.
We don't have much of anything on most topics before Nicaea. So argument from silence on any topic pre 5th century is not very compelling, in my opinion.
Anyway - not arguing the point. I'm just saying the dual meaning seems to me to be on solid footing on many levels and doesn't seem to do any injury to the text.
Gotcha. I was moving fast trying to find the dates and just skimmed the wiki looking for a date.
-------------
I don't necessarily see it as an argument from silence though, since we do see writings prior to Nicaea.
My theory is that in response to claims from Nestorius that Mary was Christotokos instead of the Theotokos, there was suddenly a desire to elevate Mary further than tradition would hold. It would have been a very human thing to do to try and insert Mary further into the story to elevate her in response to Nestorius.
---------------
But to your last comment, I do think it is problematic to try and ascribe multiple meanings or interpretations to Scripture. That's not to say you can't have personal opinions on secondary meanings, but we don't define doctrine off of these kinds of opinions.
AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
Same guy but the 9th century date ain't right for the commentary on revelation. Read further down in wiki. St Andrew of Caesarea refers to him in his commentary on Revelation, and he died in 614 AD.
We don't have much of anything on most topics before Nicaea. So argument from silence on any topic pre 5th century is not very compelling, in my opinion.
Anyway - not arguing the point. I'm just saying the dual meaning seems to me to be on solid footing on many levels and doesn't seem to do any injury to the text.
Gotcha. I was moving fast trying to find the dates and just skimmed the wiki looking for a date.
-------------
I don't necessarily see it as an argument from silence though, since we do see writings prior to Nicaea.
My theory is that in response to claims from Nestorius that Mary was Christotokos instead of the Theotokos, there was suddenly a desire to elevate Mary further than tradition would hold. It would have been a very human thing to do to try and insert Mary further into the story to elevate her in response to Nestorius.
---------------
But to your last comment, I do think it is problematic to try and ascribe multiple meanings or interpretations to Scripture. That's not to say you can't have personal opinions on secondary meanings, but we don't define doctrine off of these kinds of opinions.
This is slightly tangential, but what is the Lutheran perspective on binding and loosing?
Thaddeus73 said:Pretty sure none of us sinners are full of grace..Maybe 50%, but certainly not 100%, otherwise we wouldn't sin, ever...Quote:
I am a human, full of God's grace.
I'm full of God's divine favor bestowed on all who believe.
Clearly, we have a different view of grace. Grace doesn't cause me not to sin…God's grace redeems me from my sin.
Jude 1:24
Zobel said:
Jude 1:24
Yes, Jude 1:24. Exactly.
God's grace alone redeems me from my sin so that I may be presented to him faultless.
Thank you for the reference.
No, it says God can keep you from stumbling, synonymous with sinning.
Zobel said:
No, it says God can keep you from stumbling, synonymous with sinning.
But all have sinned and fallen short of His glory, right? The only thing that bridges that gap is His grace and forgiveness, right?
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.
I stand by my original point: all believers are "full of grace" to the extent His grace allows us to be presented blameless before God.
Yet another reason the whole "sinless Mary" dogma is fallacious. All means all, with the exception of the Son of God.
I'm saying you said Gods grace doesn't keep you from sinning. The scripture says He can.
If you were wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about?
Anyway I think you come on way too strong here. I actually happen to agree with you that the Immaculate Conception is too far on one side. On the other hand, it's a non-dogmatic pious holding for the Orthodox that she was sinless. I personally don't know, and it doesn't matter to me one way or another. Her sins, if any, are between her and her Son. And she is with Him, become like He is as we are all called, where we have no more sin and will no longer sin. So it's a moot point.
If you were wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about?
Anyway I think you come on way too strong here. I actually happen to agree with you that the Immaculate Conception is too far on one side. On the other hand, it's a non-dogmatic pious holding for the Orthodox that she was sinless. I personally don't know, and it doesn't matter to me one way or another. Her sins, if any, are between her and her Son. And she is with Him, become like He is as we are all called, where we have no more sin and will no longer sin. So it's a moot point.
Zobel said:
I'm saying you said Gods grace doesn't keep you from sinning. The scripture says He can.
If you were wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about?
Anyway I think you come on way too strong here. I actually happen to agree with you that the Immaculate Conception is too far on one side. On the other hand, it's a non-dogmatic pious holding for the Orthodox that she was sinless. I personally don't know, and it doesn't matter to me one way or another. Her sins, if any, are between her and her Son. And she is with Him, become like He is as we are all called, where we have no more sin and will no longer sin. So it's a moot point.
That scripture doesn't say "grace keeps you from stumbling", it says "God is able to keep you from stumbling"
There's a huge difference. God is able to do mighty things. He moves mountains and he parted the Red Sea. He is able to keep me from sinning. However, these are not examples of grace. It's concerning you read that into the scripture.
And then, after you misread scripture you leap to a conclusion that "you're right and I'm wrong". Sadly, this is what I've come through expect on this thread. Poor reading combined with bad logic.
As I've often repeated, the Reformation happened for a reason. It wasn't an accident.
It's also no accident that unadulterated Bible believing Protestantism is the fastest growing faction of Christianity it the world.
Imagine people reading God's word and believing it without a succession of fallable humans nearly 2,000 years long TELLING them what dogma to believe.
Catholicism will always err because of its faith in mere men something the Bible explicitly warns against.
There is but one God. The many Popes and the Virgin Mary are not worth your idolatry.
AgPrognosticator said:Zobel said:
I'm saying you said Gods grace doesn't keep you from sinning. The scripture says He can.
If you were wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about?
Anyway I think you come on way too strong here. I actually happen to agree with you that the Immaculate Conception is too far on one side. On the other hand, it's a non-dogmatic pious holding for the Orthodox that she was sinless. I personally don't know, and it doesn't matter to me one way or another. Her sins, if any, are between her and her Son. And she is with Him, become like He is as we are all called, where we have no more sin and will no longer sin. So it's a moot point.
That scripture doesn't say "grace keeps you from stumbling", it says "God is able to keep you from stumbling"
There's a huge difference. God is able to do mighty things. He moves mountains and he parted the Red Sea. He is able to keep me from sinning. However, these are not examples of grace. It's concerning you read that into the scripture.
And then, after you misread scripture you leap to a conclusion that "you're right and I'm wrong". Sadly, this is what I've come through expect on this thread. Poor reading combined with bad logic.
As I've often repeated, the Reformation happened for a reason. It wasn't an accident.
It's also no accident that unadulterated Bible believing Protestantism is the fastest growing faction of Christianity it the world.
Imagine people reading God's word and believing it without a succession of fallable humans nearly 2,000 years long TELLING them what dogma to believe.
Catholicism will always err because of its faith in mere men something the Bible explicitly warns against.
There is but one God. The many Popes and the Virgin Mary are not worth your idolatry.
1. Probably best not to say one has poor reading comprehension and not even read enough to know Zobel isn't Catholic.
2. You have yet to respond to the historical fact that for the vast majority of Christian history, your view of how to live the faith is literally impossible. Prior to the reformation, literacy rates were 20% or less. Bibles also were insanely expensive. What you're suggesting we do to live out our faith doesnt really become possible until 1900, when literacy rates (in the west at least) FINALLY crack 50% and bibles cost were reduced to only one day's wage (still far too high of a cost for many).
There are many theological reasons to reject your view, but simply on historicity alone, it makes no sense. But you are correct in saying it's no coincidence that "unadulterated Bible believing Protestantism" is growing so fast. Now all people have to do is read their Bible and decide for themselves what it means. No longer do they have to follow the difficult teachings. They simply don't read their Bible that way, so poof! No problems. They can just start their own church/denomination that agrees with their view 100%. Pretty dang convenient.
OK, here's what I'll do. Since my 15th great grandfather couldn't read in 13th century Germany and he was required to consume the Bible through a priest, I will do the same thing in 2024. #Catholicism
Is that really you're argument?
Is that really you're argument?
AgPrognosticator said:
OK, here's what I'll do. Since my 15th great grandfather couldn't read in 1400s Germany and he was required to consume the Bible through a priest, I will do the same thing in 2024. #Catholicism
Is that really you're argument?
No. I'm saying that you were never intended to be your own church and your own guide. Jesus didn't write a single word. The first book of the Bible wasn't written for 20-30 years. The last book for 60 years. And you couldn't reasonably expect to own and be capable of reading it until the 1900s.
We were never intended to simply read our bibles and decide for ourselves. We were always meant to learn the faith through our teachers, which is why all the original Protestant denominations maintained that history and tradition are needed for the faith.
I'll never understand the "solo" scriptura types. If you never taught your kids your faith and what the difficult passages mean, do you think every single one of them would read it the way you do? Or is it important you teach them early so they can understand it as the grow and read it for themselves. Just look how atheists "twist" the scriptures. Each of them tell you they are reading it plainly.
Quote:
That scripture doesn't say "grace keeps you from stumbling", it says "God is able to keep you from stumbling"
There's a huge difference. God is able to do mighty things. He moves mountains and he parted the Red Sea. He is able to keep me from sinning. However, these are not examples of grace. It's concerning you read that into the scripture.
Where did you receive your Biblical Interpretive training and authority from?
If God can keep you from sinning would it have been possible for him to have done that for his mother?
Quote:
And then, after you misread scripture you leap to a conclusion that "you're right and I'm wrong". Sadly, this is what I've come through expect on this thread. Poor reading combined with bad logic.
Sadly, this pretty much sums up the problem with Protestantism. Everyone claims the Bible as their sole infallible authority but anyone with a different interpretation of the same Bible is misreading scripture and must be wrong.
Quote:
As I've often repeated, the Reformation happened for a reason. It wasn't an accident.
It's also no accident that unadulterated Bible believing Protestantism is the fastest growing faction of Christianity it the world.
Does the rate of growth make something true? Living in the truth is not always easy or attractive.
Quote:
Imagine people reading God's word and believing it without a succession of fallable humans nearly 2,000 years long TELLING them what dogma to believe.
I cannot imagine reading the Bible, without the guidance of the Church, and in my ability to properly understand the faith left to my own. It was in fact only through those same fallible men that the scriptures have even come to us.
The Ethiopian Eunuch comes to mind: "So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."
Quote:
Catholicism will always err because of its faith in mere men something the Bible explicitly warns against.
Our faith rests in God, not in men, which seems to be something you are having great difficulty in seeing or understanding. The Bible warns us against following traditions of men that are contrary to God. The Bible instructs us to hold fast to the Traditions we have been taught from the Apostles.
Quote:
There is but one God. The many Popes and the Virgin Mary are not worth your idolatry.
God alone is the object of our worship. Mary was the mother of our savior, something no other person was chosen to be. She accepted immediately. So no, you are not like Mary. None of us are.
You completely misunderstand and misrepresent the Catholic and Apostolic faith, and to Zobel's point you are far too aggressive about it. Defending your own beliefs is something we should all be ready and willing to do, while seeking to understand those who have different views. Accusing Catholics of idolatry shows your lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject.
I don't understand. What do you think grace is? We are saved by grace. Grace abounds in us in order that we can do good things. We are given grace, it is something we partake of. Grace is what makes us righteous. It strengthens us. St Paul says the grace of the Lord is that He became poor so that we might become rich - in other words, the Incarnation itself and our participation in it is grace. In another place St Paul says the grace of God appeared - Christ Himself - and it is by God's grace that Jesus tasted death for all. At the Spirit Himself is called the Spirit of Grace. Grace is God working in the world.Quote:
That scripture doesn't say "grace keeps you from stumbling", it says "God is able to keep you from stumbling"
There's a huge difference. God is able to do mighty things. He moves mountains and he parted the Red Sea. He is able to keep me from sinning. However, these are not examples of grace. It's concerning you read that into the scripture.
If God keeps you from sinning, how is this not grace? Wouldn't that be a sign of His favor and a guide to salvation that is given to you to make you righteous and so you can do the good works of God? Isn't the opposite of the works of the flesh the works of God? So if grace empowers you to do the good works of God, by definition isn't that empowering you to keep from the flesh, and therefore sin?
indeed.Quote:
And then, after you misread scripture you leap to a conclusion that "you're right and I'm wrong". Sadly, this is what I've come through expect on this thread. Poor reading combined with bad logic.
first, I'm not a Roman Catholic.Quote:
Catholicism will always err because of its faith in mere men something the Bible explicitly warns against.
Second, can you please tell me the difference between a person - presumably a fallible human - reading the scriptures and deciding what dogma to believe and a person being told by another fallible human what to believe? Is trading one fallibility for another really a guard against error?
Yeah, man, you should apologize. I'm not an idolater, and it is a sin to bear false witness. God forgives!Quote:
There is but one God. The many Popes and the Virgin Mary are not worth your idolatry.
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
Same guy but the 9th century date ain't right for the commentary on revelation. Read further down in wiki. St Andrew of Caesarea refers to him in his commentary on Revelation, and he died in 614 AD.
We don't have much of anything on most topics before Nicaea. So argument from silence on any topic pre 5th century is not very compelling, in my opinion.
Anyway - not arguing the point. I'm just saying the dual meaning seems to me to be on solid footing on many levels and doesn't seem to do any injury to the text.
Gotcha. I was moving fast trying to find the dates and just skimmed the wiki looking for a date.
-------------
I don't necessarily see it as an argument from silence though, since we do see writings prior to Nicaea.
My theory is that in response to claims from Nestorius that Mary was Christotokos instead of the Theotokos, there was suddenly a desire to elevate Mary further than tradition would hold. It would have been a very human thing to do to try and insert Mary further into the story to elevate her in response to Nestorius.
---------------
But to your last comment, I do think it is problematic to try and ascribe multiple meanings or interpretations to Scripture. That's not to say you can't have personal opinions on secondary meanings, but we don't define doctrine off of these kinds of opinions.
This is slightly tangential, but what is the Lutheran perspective on binding and loosing?
I suspect it's probably not materially different than your view (or the EO), with the real difference being "who represents the church."
You'll probably point to Matthew 16:19, as something unique to Peter, and I think most can agree with a view of primacy for Peter (but not supremacy), but we cannot ignore that in Matthew 18, the same ability was given to all the Apostles (which is read as the whole church).
So the Church has been given the authority to bind and loose. Where we disagree (Rome, EO, Lutherans, etc) is over "who" constitutes the church.
All generations to come are to call Mary blessed, per the bible. Why? Because she was full of grace before, during, and after the incarnation. Being full of grace was imparted to only 4 people in the entire bible - Adam and Eve, who threw theirs away with sin, and Jesus and Mary, who kept theirs because they were obedient to God, forever.
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
So this is where the idea for the immaculate conception comes from right? That Mary must be immaculately conceived to prevent her was having original sin to pass on to Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
Why does it work for her conception but not Jesus? If May's parents are both sinners, but she is free of original sin, why could it not work for Jesus?
Otherwise your analogy requires a separate line of humans who have never sinned to preserve this sacred tree that never produced bad fruit.
Pro Sandy said:So this is where the idea for the immaculate conception comes from right? That Mary must be immaculately conceived to prevent her was having original sin to pass on to Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
Why does it work for her conception but not Jesus? If May's parents are both sinners, but she is free of original sin, why could it not work for Jesus?
Otherwise your analogy requires a separate line of humans who have never sinned to preserve this sacred tree that never produced bad fruit.
This doesn't actually align with church teaching. I've heard it before from other Catholic, and it seems right on the surface, but the church does not teach she "had" to be sinless. The church teaches that it is "fitting" that she was sinless
Pro Sandy said:So this is where the idea for the immaculate conception comes from right? That Mary must be immaculately conceived to prevent her was having original sin to pass on to Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
Why does it work for her conception but not Jesus? If May's parents are both sinners, but she is free of original sin, why could it not work for Jesus?
Otherwise your analogy requires a separate line of humans who have never sinned to preserve this sacred tree that never produced bad fruit.
Not quite. You are focused on Mary and not on Jesus. Remember EVERYTHING is about Jesus, and not Mary. Mary was made pure and holy and free from sin because she was to be the bearer of God. Anything is possible for God, and nothing is impossible. Just as the Ark was made pure and holy to be the dwelling place of God, so too was Mary because she was to contain in her womb, Jesus.
Despite how it may seem from the outside looking in, the beliefs and teachings about Mary are because of her relationship to Jesus, and what is fitting for God.
Mary's parents and grandparents were not set apart to be the Theotokos. There is only one, Mary.
Pro Sandy said:So this is where the idea for the immaculate conception comes from right? That Mary must be immaculately conceived to prevent her was having original sin to pass on to Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
And besides, we know from the Bible that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Jesus is sinless, and he got his human nature solely from his Mother Mary, then that means that Mary had to be sinless also..unless you think that a bad tree can bear good fruit....Which isn't biblical...
Why does it work for her conception but not Jesus? If May's parents are both sinners, but she is free of original sin, why could it not work for Jesus?
Otherwise your analogy requires a separate line of humans who have never sinned to preserve this sacred tree that never produced bad fruit.
This ends up being the problem.
The myths become more popular than the reality.
This ends up being why this particular myth falls apart.
Because if a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, then Mary's mother needed to be a "good tree" and so on and so forth. This of course doesn't work scripturally.
So you're left with what The Banned said, which at least avoids this pitfall because is basically says "God intervened because He can."
Since this really cannot be proved from Scripture (we have no idea of Mary's early life), Rome just kinda says, "we say it's true so it is."
The reality is we have no clue and probably won't until we are in the presence of Jesus in heaven...but I bet by then we won't particularly care.
The Ark of the Covenant was pure and holy, and as the NT Ark of the Covenant, so is she. Eve was pure and Holy when created, and so is Mary. God created His own mother on earth pure and holy for a reason, because she's the living tabernacle of His Son Jesus. And as the bible says, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit...
Featured Stories
See All
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
7:12
1d ago
1.0k
Texas A&M's final home weekend begins with 3-1 win over Georgia
by Jonathan Chung
1:54
14h ago
906
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger