What do Messianics consider themselves a sect of?

[Meowzltov]

"Moses is read in the synagogues each Sabbath." The point was, "Start here and go learn the rest."

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the Council. We shall have to agree to disagree agreeably.

 

[ContraMundum]

Remember there is no punctuation in Hebrew.

The NT is written in Greek, not Hebrew. Attributing values to words that are not there is pure speculation. Ken is doing well in responding.

 

[Norbert L]

Oh goodness, Pat, that's just awful! Dreadful. Horrid. Of the Devil.

"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils". Mk 16:9

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Lk. 24:1

ETC.

You have to do a lot of grammar gymnastics (not beyond revisionists like yourself of course) to annul and alter plain and simple verses like that. Go ahead, slice and dice and carve and serve up your interpretation of the Bible, I'll keep it plain and simple.

People are very passionate as to what they comprehend being testified within the scriptures and a lot of the time it's not plain and simple. Given that what is known about Mk 16:9, "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20". A person may conclude slicing and dicing isn't necessarily a modern invention.

 

[Ken Rank]

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the Council. We shall have to agree to disagree agreeably.

Not really sis, I actually have been blessed to have some gaps filled. If you care....

At the time of Yeshua, there were two schools of Pharisaical thought, not one. The first was Beit (School of) Shamai, the other Beit Hillel. Shamai had a slogan, "Letter of the Law." Hillel did too, "Spirit of the Law." Hillel died in 10AD, at the time the head of the Sanhedrin and probably in the Temple when Yeshua, at 12, taught there. Incidentally, Paul's teacher, Gamaliel, was Hillel's grandson. We then now know the source of Paul speaking about "spirit of" and "letter of." It was common understanding in that day.

Anyway.... about 50 years before the Acts 15 Council, there was a debate between Shamai and Hillel. The subject was Jewish proselytes and what to expect of them. Hillel offered the notion that a proselyte should not be expected to have much understanding at first and that perhaps them refraining from fornication, idols, things strangled and blood (that gives life) was a good start and that they would learn the rest after that. Shamai agreed but added that one should have the ability to recite all 613 commandments and should be circumcised first. Shamai's position was accepted and that was the halacha from that point on. The two men who approach Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:1-2 were from the school of Shamai or adherents to his teachings because they were demanding circumcision as an initial act. When Paul, who again attended Beit Hillel, went back to Jerusalem and they convened that Council, what they did was turn back the clock to Hillel's position word for word. The 4 things were meant to be a starting point and from there they were expected to learn and apply what they learn as they grow.

*As an aside... those who read the NT and come away thinking all Pharisees were rebuked are wrong. In each and every case but once, those being rebuked held letter of the law positions that originated at Beit Shamai.

 

[Ken Rank]

The NT is written in Greek, not Hebrew. Attributing values to words that are not there is pure speculation. Ken is doing well in responding.

As I post this, please understand, this to me is not a divisive subject.... or shouldn't be anyway! So I throw a few things out for consideration and if you reject them, that is just fine and dandy!

I have no issue with the Greek. When I first came into the faith knowing little I remember a teacher calling Koine Greek "Gutter Greek" and of course had no idea why... I now know he didn't either. It was Semitic Greek, similar to what Yiddish is to German and Hebrew, Koine Greek is that equal to Greek and Hebrew. The Hebraic nuances retained, certain idiomatic phrases in use... very "Hebrew" in that regard. Anyway.... it is a given by most scholars that Matthew was written in Hebrew both because of the arrangement of certain phraseology but also because of Jerome's comment. When he translated the Vulgate he claimed to use an original copy of Matthew in Hebrew as one of the sources for that book. I would contend that a number of NT books were first penned in Aramaic, I am convinced the gospel of John is one of them. But history provides a couple of comments I find interesting. In Eusebius, who if anything would have a clear Greek bias, said that Paul's work was done in Hebrew and translated by Luke into Greek, and that Peter wrote in Hebrew and was translated by Mark into Greek. He even refers to "Paul's gospel" which might suggest he wrote Luke and that Luke merely translated.

I am NOT saying this is 100% accurate, I just find it fascinating. For me, the weight is not on the language anyway, but on the paradigm of the author at the time. God inspired the writers but when reading the gospels it becomes clear by the differences in style and approach, that each author retained their individuality. God didn't "take them over," He inspired them and they wrote in their own style using their own words to describe the inspired message. My point being, whether the NT was written in Greek or KJV English (that is a joke! ) the mindset behind it was Hebraic and understanding first century culture and becoming aware of certain idiomatic phrases and other forms of abstract phraseology they used at the time not to mention any rules of exegesis used by any of the writers, goes a long way in adding to context.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[ContraMundum]

My point being, whether the NT was written in Greek or KJV English (that is a joke! ) the mindset behind it was Hebraic

I'm of the school of thought that the "Hebraic mindset" approach to scripture is a little overrated on this forum. I agree of course that there is a Hebraic understanding and root, but I am also thoroughly convinced that the bulk of the NT was written to communicate with Gentiles, not just Jews. Hence, other cultural idioms are present. Furthermore, if God is in any way involved in the inspiration of scripture, we would hope that He intends to be clear enough to both Jew and Gentile. I don't believe the key to unlocking the whole of the NT is a degree in Rabbinics, and I find it interesting that much of the Rabbinic interpretation presented by posters on this forum are rather recent in comparison with the age of the NT.

The fact for me is that if one is to believe in God's sovereignty, He has preserved the NT in Koine Greek- and the study of the rules of grammar therefore take precedence over all traditional musings. Sure, when we come to an ambiguous or unclear passage, tradition is important- but I would say that the traditions of those who recognized and selected the texts as scriptural canon surely would outweigh the traditions of those who rejected them. IOW, the NT is the Church's statement of faith, not the Rabbis' plaything.

 

[Ken Rank]

I'm of the school of thought that the "Hebraic mindset" approach to scripture is a little overrated on this forum. I agree of course that there is a Hebraic understanding and root, but I am also thoroughly convinced that the bulk of the NT was written to communicate with Gentiles, not just Jews. Hence, other cultural idioms are present. Furthermore, if God is in any way involved in the inspiration of scripture, we would hope that He intends to be clear enough to both Jew and Gentile. I don't believe the key to unlocking the whole of the NT is a degree in Rabbinics, and I find it interesting that much of the Rabbinic interpretation presented by posters on this forum are rather recent in comparison with the age of the NT.

The fact for me is that if one is to believe in God's sovereignty, He has preserved the NT in Koine Greek- and the study of the rules of grammar therefore take precedence over all traditional musings. Sure, when we come to an ambiguous or unclear passage, tradition is important- but I would say that the traditions of those who recognized and selected the texts as scriptural canon surely would outweigh the traditions of those who rejected them. IOW, the NT is the Church's statement of faith, not the Rabbis' plaything.

I can't answer for what others think or say on this forum... I haven't been here long, know few people, and tend to stick in just a few boards. You're probably correct as I often see folks swinging with the pendulum too far to one side or the other. I try to be balanced but I also allow the chips to fall where they need to and adjust to the facts, not make them adjust to me. I do agree with your point about other cultures... Paul quotes from a Greek play at least once, perhaps twice. Yet nearly 1/3rd of the "NT" are quotes of inferences from the Tanach... so the weight of context remains Hebrew. That also said, God did promise to speak to His people in other languages (Isaiah 28:11) and so I have no issue with that thought either. Of course He would speak to His people in every nation and every tongue... He scattered His people to these places. I lay off rabbinic opinion (will consider it if it is a worthy one) but our groups and those we associate with are not your average Hebrew Roots/Messianic congregation(s). Maybe one day you can come for a visit. Gotta run...have some work to do.

 

[pat34lee]

I can show a number of places in Scripture where "3 days" means "the day after tomorrow."

Please do.

 

[pat34lee]

He said we need to believe/trust/have faith in him

This is why all questions of biblical accuracy are indeed salvational.
If you cannot trust him to say what he means, you cannot trust him at all.

 

[Ken Rank]

This is why all questions of biblical accuracy are indeed salvational.
If you cannot trust him to say what he means, you cannot trust him at all.

Of "Biblical accuracy?" Yes... however... that takes us into two realms, interpretation and textual criticism. Regarding the latter, which I won't get too far into, if we acknowledge that the manuscripts we have are copies of originals and then translated by men into other languages knowing that sometimes there are not perfectly equal words in the language we are going into... then accuracy isn't an issue but clearly we then see a need to study, compare, and PRAY and not just pray but WAIT for answers before we run off thinking we have some lock on truth! And when it comes to interpretation we have the person's bias which affects his conclusions, how he defines words... what methods he is using and is he taking into consideration the methods used by the authors of the books in the bible? For example, well over 30 times Paul uses one of the 7 rules of Hillel. (He went to Beit Hillel as he studied under Hillel's grandson, Gamaliel.) A few of those rules demand that the verses being quoted in the Tanach (OT) have their context moved into the place they are being quoted. For example... if I asked you to go read Romans 9:21 through 27 and asked if 27 is speaking about eternal salvation, most Christians would answer, "yes." However, Paul is drawing on various verses from Hosea to set up his point about Israel (The Northern Kingdom) having been sent into the nations and God's promise to one day bring them home. You don't all of that, completely, by reading the Hosea quotes UNLESS you go back and read the entire chapters he is quoting. When you get to verse 27, and see the word saved, we then... because we didn't go read Hosea 1 and 2, see the word "saved" and make a conclusion that isn't accurate. For 9:27 is quoting Isaiah 10:22 which is clearly speaking about Israel RETURNING from where they had been driven to... and not just returning to God, returning to the LAND as well. When we have completed this reading of the places being quoted, and then continue reading on in Romans doing the same as you go, when we get to Romans 11 we get treated with some insights we didn't see before.

So anyway... my point is simply I agree with you.... but I also would add that we have to allow each person to work through this and find answers and we won't all be on the same page at the same time.

 

[Meowzltov]

This is why all questions of biblical accuracy are indeed salvational.
If you cannot trust him to say what he means, you cannot trust him at all.

No where in the Bible does it say belief in "Biblical accuracy" is necessary for salvation.

 

[Ken Rank]

Please do.

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'

1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.

2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

That gives a little of a baseline that "3 days and nights" and be "on the 3rd day." It is an idiom, which all languages are full of. When I was a kid we used the term "booking" to mean "run fast." Somebody who dies doesn't literally, "kick the bucket." We even see this in the NT:

Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. "

Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').

 

[Ken Rank]

No where in the Bible does it say belief in "Biblical accuracy" is necessary for salvation.

I think Pat's point is that if salvation is something we derive from Scripture, and Scripture is not accurate, then salvation can also be inaccurate because the origin of it would then come from an inaccurate source. It isn't that one must believe a doctrine of inaccuracy... my gosh, that person would pass away from cognitive dissonance if they ever stood among a group who understood and were having a deep discussion on textual criticism.

 

[Meowzltov]

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'

1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.

2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

That gives a little of a baseline that "3 days and nights" and be "on the 3rd day." It is an idiom, which all languages are full of. When I was a kid we used the term "booking" to mean "run fast." Somebody who dies doesn't literally, "kick the bucket." We even see this in the NT:

Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. "

Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').

Good job. I originally disagree with you, and thought no way could you prove it.... but you did! I wish I could memorize your post.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think Pat's point is that if salvation is something we derive from Scripture, and Scripture is not accurate, then salvation can also be inaccurate because the origin of it would then come from an inaccurate source. It isn't that one must believe a doctrine of inaccuracy... my gosh, that person would pass away from cognitive dissonance if they ever stood among a group who understood and were having a deep discussion on textual criticism.

I see what you are saying, but I would still disagree with Pat. We can learn from inaccurate sources. We do so all the time. Consider that Newton's physics were flawed, yet they worked for us for centuries. We know that Einsteins physics are similarly flawed, but look at the amazing things it has brought us. Now when you have a document that is inspired (but flawed) then how much more can we learn from it! The Bible itself makes no claims to being inerrant. Only to being inspired.

 

[Ken Rank]

I see what you are saying, but I would still disagree with Pat. We can learn from inaccurate sources. We do so all the time. Consider that Newton's physics were flawed, yet they worked for us for centuries. We know that Einsteins physics are similarly flawed, but look at the amazing things it has brought us. Now when you have a document that is inspired (but flawed) then how much more can we learn from it! The Bible itself makes no claims to being inerrant. Only to being inspired.

I certainly don't disagree... consider that Paul used pagan sources a few times to make points depending on who he was talking to. For example:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul used two pagan quotes in the hope of sparking a discussion at the Areopagus. The phrase “in him we live and move and have our being” is found in the poem Cretica, written by Epimenides in the 6th century BC, although in the poem the description is applied to Zeus. Paul then builds on this quote, adding “your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’.” This is a direct quote from the Stoic thinker Aratus [Phainomena 5], although Aratus ascribes the origin of humanity, again, to Zeus. GASP! When he spoke of being a gentile to a gentile or a Jew to a Jew... he wasn't speaking about compromise but rather in how we reach out to others "on the levels they are on." If speaking to one who understood these references and through that connection he could plant a seed about the "True God," then he will have helped another take a step forward using an inaccurate source.

This all goes, I believe, a little beyond Pat's comment... but should serve us well to consider these things.

 

[Lulav]

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'

1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.

2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

That gives a little of a baseline that "3 days and nights" and be "on the 3rd day." It is an idiom, which all languages are full of. When I was a kid we used the term "booking" to mean "run fast." Somebody who dies doesn't literally, "kick the bucket." We even see this in the NT:

Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. "

Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').

Yet you didn't use the one tenahk reference that Yeshua used, so I think we need to use that as our reference.

17 And the L-RD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1

שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה לֵילֹֽות

This clearly says three days and three nights

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as* JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12

* word in Greek meaning exactly as or same as

This is showing the period of 72 hours broken down as

12d+12n+12d+12n+12d+12n

 

[Meowzltov]

Yet you didn't use the one tenahk reference that Yeshua used, so I think we need to use that as our reference.

17 And the L-RD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1

שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה לֵילֹֽות

This clearly says three days and three nights

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as* JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12

* word in Greek meaning exactly as or same as

This is showing the period of 72 hours broken down as

12d+12n+12d+12n+12d+12n

But according to Ken's stunning exposition (which certainly changed my mind), the three days and three nights were probably what WE would call three days and two nights.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yet you didn't use the one tenahk reference that Yeshua used, so I think we need to use that as our reference.

17 And the L-RD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1

שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה לֵילֹֽות

This clearly says three days and three nights

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as* JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12

* word in Greek meaning exactly as or same as

This is showing the period of 72 hours broken down as

12d+12n+12d+12n+12d+12n

Respectfully, it is not. There are 5 or 6 more examples of "3 days and nights" or "3 days" (or "7 days") being used idiomatically. ANY part of a day counts as a day... Yeshua died at 3:00PM I think on a Thursday but no matter, that left only 3 hours in the day and that counts as "Day 1." To the Western mind? No... but to the Hebraic mind it does. WE, us Westerners... we like to be exact but God isn't as exact as we might think. For example...

There is a month or two during the year where the new moon is high enough that it can be seen before the sun is completely gone or any evidence of evening (as in stars or planets) can be seen. That means the new MONTH began before the end of the last day of the previous month?

If I am 6' and my friend is 7' and God told us both to EACH make a building, "10 cubits by 10 cubits" then when we both completed our tasks, his would be bigger than mine because his cubit was bigger than mine. Yet, we will both have done what we were told to do.

Today a foot is exactly 12" whereas not all that long ago it was the size of a man's foot... ANY man. A yard was the height from the ground to the hip, now it is exactly 36". We have standardized time and measurement but the Scripture is not exact like that. In this case, Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days.... that is only 72 hours to the Westerner who needs to be exact. But to the Hebrew who in that day and time used that phrase idiomatically, it meant any part of 3 consecutive days.

I say all this and also say... believe what you want on this. I am not trying to push you into seeing things as I do. Just throwing out another perspective to be weighed out.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Lulav]

I certainly don't disagree... consider that Paul used pagan sources a few times to make points depending on who he was talking to. For example:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul used two pagan quotes in the hope of sparking a discussion at the Areopagus. The phrase “in him we live and move and have our being” is found in the poem Cretica, written by Epimenides in the 6th century BC, although in the poem the description is applied to Zeus. Paul then builds on this quote, adding “your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’.” This is a direct quote from the Stoic thinker Aratus [Phainomena 5], although Aratus ascribes the origin of humanity, again, to Zeus. GASP! When he spoke of being a gentile to a gentile or a Jew to a Jew... he wasn't speaking about compromise but rather in how we reach out to others "on the levels they are on." If speaking to one who understood these references and through that connection he could plant a seed about the "True God," then he will have helped another take a step forward using an inaccurate source.

This all goes, I believe, a little beyond Pat's comment... but should serve us well to consider these things.

Reaching out to someone at the place of their understanding is one thing, comparing the One True G-d to false gods is another, not to mention that he supposedly put these words into the mouth of the son of G-d.

You didn't mention his reference to Euripides play

"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'…

Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 163-9, claims there is a parallel in the Bacchae, which is approximately five hundred years older than Acts. Here, Dionysus, the persecuted god, says to King Pentheus, his persecutor: "You disregard my words of warning... and kick against the goads [pros kentra laktizein]” (line 794). Luke retains the plural form of the noun 'kentra' which, while maintaining the meter in the Bacchae, seems out of place in Acts. Not only are these words surprisingly similar, but Acts says Jesus that Jesus quoted a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic ("in the Hebrew language"). Even the situations are similar, with Jesus as the persecuted God in Acts and Dionysus the persecuted god in the Bacchae.