|
Posts: 118
Joined: July 2025
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,375
Posts56,575
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295
May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Obviously it is the apostate jews that are causing the trouble so its easy to see them as being on the wrong end of the 'flaming fire'.
Probably this fire;
But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
There is every reason to believe the judgment against the apostates has historical as well as eternal aspects. The prophecies that Jesus personally made against Israel have yet, at the time, come to pass. When they do there can be no doubt that He as a true prophet and is in heaven , and thats not too far off.
I dont believe the Second Advent is in view here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
'Returning' implies a bodily presence a return to things as they were previously. Christ left the earth in the same body that came from the tomb, 'coming' on the other hand may or may not be a return. Christ can certainly 'come' in the sense of orchestrating the destruction of Egypt or Jerusalem. Im sure we agree the First Advent was not the fist time Christ had 'come ' to earth , but that it was different in nature than previous comings. Is there any reason to believe He would not continue be active in history , without coming in a visible way? I dont think there is, just as I dont think any invisible coming negates His eventual bodily return. Methinks this is nothing less than symantec gymnastics. :rolleyes: 62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
For anyone who believes and coming in the clouds of heaven in this passage refers to the second Advent, the bodily visible return, Id like to know how you literalize that portion but deliteralize this part ye see the Son. How is this accomplished without splitting that sentence in half? No I dont think its proper here to generalize the you (ye), its no accident that Christ is directly set as opposite the High Priest.
I reckon its far more likely Jesus is speaking about the judgment coming in a few decades, not an event at least 2,000 years future, and that the High Priest or at least some of his contemporaries will witness the destruction. Doesnt Jesus quote 'this generation shall not pass' apply here? For me, Hendriksen states the biblical case most succinctly and accurately in regard to Matt 26:64: That is the way in which Daniel had seen the coming Redeemer (Dan 7:13,14). It was thus that David sang of him (Ps 110:1), and thus also that Jesus had himself described himself (see on Matt 16:27; 22:41-46; 24:30), be it previously only to his disciples. Jesus is looking down history's lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father's right hand ("the right hand of the Power," that is, "of the Almighty"), Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory. On the final day of judgment he, even Jesus, will be the Judge, and these very men-Caiaphas and his partners-will have to answer for the crime they are now committing. Christ's prophecy is also a warning!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif) simul iustus et peccator![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
Originally Posted By: Hitch 'Returning' implies a bodily presence a return to things as they were previously. Christ left the earth in the same body that came from the tomb, 'coming' on the other hand may or may not be a return. Christ can certainly 'come' in the sense of orchestrating the destruction of Egypt or Jerusalem. Im sure we agree the First Advent was not the fist time Christ had 'come ' to earth , but that it was different in nature than previous comings. Is there any reason to believe He would not continue be active in history , without coming in a visible way? I dont think there is, just as I dont think any invisible coming negates His eventual bodily return.Methinks this is nothing less than symantec gymnastics. :rolleyes: Well thats an interesting insight given your alteration of Rev 1;1-3.
Anyway Im glad to stand here next to Drs Boettner and Gentry. I wonder whether you have read either one on this particular subject?
My source is chapter IX The Mellinnium , L Boettner pgs 248-262 (on 252 look under the heading Various Ways In Which Christ Comes)
And Gentry's He shall Have Dominion , pgs 271-275
[quote]
Consummation 273
We know that the disciples (and other believers) are with the Lord in heaven after their deaths (Phil. 1:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-9). Hence, this statement must mean He comes to them at their deaths. Though Stephen’s death is unique in Scripture, it may indicate something of Christ’s personal involvement in the deaths of all His saints (Acts 7:59). Are we left to find our way to heaven? Or does Christ personally receive His own into the presence of the Father? After all, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). He comes into the presence of the Father at His ascension, in order to receive His kingdom. “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him” (Dan. 7:13). He leaves the world so that He may “come” to the Father: “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. . . . Now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world” (John 17:11, 13a).7 Beyond these spiritual comings and in addition to the bodily second advent, there is another sort of coming. This is a providential coming of Christ in historical judgments upon men. In the Old Testament, clouds are frequently employed as symbols of divine wrath and judgment. Often God is seen surrounded with foreboding clouds which express His unapproachable holiness and righteousness.8 Thus, God is poetically portrayed in certain judgment scenes as coming in the clouds to wreak historical vengeance upon His enemies. For example: “The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst” (Isa. 19:1 ).9 Sorry Im not able to cut&paste from Boettner's book.
Last edited by Hitch; Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
'Returning' implies a bodily presence a return to things as they were previously. Christ left the earth in the same body that came from the tomb, 'coming' on the other hand may or may not be a return. Christ can certainly 'come' in the sense of orchestrating the destruction of Egypt or Jerusalem. Im sure we agree the First Advent was not the fist time Christ had 'come ' to earth , but that it was different in nature than previous comings. Is there any reason to believe He would not continue be active in history , without coming in a visible way? I dont think there is, just as I dont think any invisible coming negates His eventual bodily return. Methinks this is nothing less than symantec gymnastics. :rolleyes: 62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
For anyone who believes and coming in the clouds of heaven in this passage refers to the second Advent, the bodily visible return, Id like to know how you literalize that portion but deliteralize this part ye see the Son. How is this accomplished without splitting that sentence in half? No I dont think its proper here to generalize the you (ye), its no accident that Christ is directly set as opposite the High Priest.
I reckon its far more likely Jesus is speaking about the judgment coming in a few decades, not an event at least 2,000 years future, and that the High Priest or at least some of his contemporaries will witness the destruction. Doesnt Jesus quote 'this generation shall not pass' apply here? For me, Hendriksen states the biblical case most succinctly and accurately in regard to Matt 26:64: <blockquote>That is the way in which Daniel had seen the coming Redeemer (Dan 7:13,14). It was thus that David sang of him (Ps 110:1), and thus also that Jesus had himself described himself (see on Matt 16:27; 22:41-46; 24:30), be it previously only to his disciples. Jesus is looking down history's lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father's right hand ("the right hand of the Power," that is, "of the Almighty"), Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory. On the final day of judgment he, even Jesus, will be the Judge, and these very men-Caiaphas and his partners-will have to answer for the crime they are now committing. Christ's prophecy is also a warning!</blockquote> Yup sure is Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Im begining to wonder though ,since you adopt the DF interpretation of 'soon' if you also use their interpretation of 'generation ' ?
Last edited by Hitch; Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Im begining to wonder though, since you adopt the DF interpretation of 'soon' if you also use their interpretation of 'generation '? 1. I have already stated that I do not embrace in any way, shape or form a "DF interpretation" of the Bible. Your argument is so innane that if applied across the board, you could be accused of being a Roman Catholic because you recognize the word "Trinity" which the Catholic church also does. You really need to temper your remarks and dispense with the ad hominem slurs. 2. I have already stated that I hold to historic, biblical Amillennialism, a tenet of which is the "already but not yet" principle. Yes, there are certain events which came to pass which were either a full or partial fulfillment of some prophecies. What I reject is the Postmillenialist idea that the majority of prophecy was fulfilled pre-AD 70, which is akin to hyper-Preterism. From David Engelsma's excellent series, here is a quote from some of the more well known authorities of the Postmillennarian camp: The exegetical basis of “Christian Reconstruction’s” grand vision of a “Christianized” world - the victory of the gospel in history - is largely the interpretation of Matthew 24 by J. Marcellus Kik. The Presbyterian’s interpretation of Jesus’ eschatological discourse has been reprinted in a book titled, An Eschatology of Victory (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), pp. 53-173.
Kik explains the chapter in such a way that verses 4-31 refer exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A. D. 70. Nothing in these verses refers at all to Jesus’ second coming and the events that immediately precede His coming. The abomination of desolation in verse 15 refers only to the desecration of the temple by the “idolatrous ensigns” of the invading Roman army (p.104). The “great tribulation” of verse 21 refers only to the suffering of the Jews at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. The false Christs and false prophets of verse 24 refer only to the pretender-Messiahs and false teachers among the Jews at that time.
The “coming of the Son of man” in verses 27 and 30 is not the visible, bodily return of Christ, but His revelation in the preaching of the gospel by the apostles. The gathering of the elect by the angels in verse 31 is the spiritual saving of the elect through the gospel. “Angels” are human preachers.
The preliminary signs in the heavens of verse 29 are not the literal darkening of the sun and moon, prior to Jesus’ second coming, but the going out of the figurative light of the Jews as a nation in A. D. 70. “The sun of Judaism has been darkened” (p.128). The shaking of the powers of the heavens in verse 29 “refers to Satan and his angels” (p. 133).
The basis for this understanding of Matthew 24:4-31 according to Kik and his “Christian Reconstruction” disciples is Jesus’ word in verse 34: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Kik explains this word as meaning, very simply, that every single prophecy of Christ in verses 4-31 was fulfilled, exhaustively, in the lifetime of the generation that was alive at the time of Jesus’ instruction. All was exhaustively fulfilled in A. D. 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing foretold in verses 4-31 pertains to the second coming.
The key to Matthew Twenty-four is verse 34.... Every thing mentioned in the previous verses were (sic) to be fulfilled before the contemporary generation would pass away.... The first thirty-four verses of Matthew 24, along with verse 35... deal with the destruction of Jerusalem (pp. 59, 60, 67).
Gary DeMar agrees:
The events rehearsed in the Olivet Discourse are signs leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. These chapters have nothing to do with when Jesus will return at the final judgment. There are no observable signs leading up to His bodily return (Last Days, p.151).
This interpretation of Matthew 24 is basic to the postmillennial denial of apostasy, Antichrist, and great tribulation for the church in the future. For in the light of this explanation of Matthew 24, the postmillennialist goes through the entire New Testament rigorously applying all prediction of such things to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Fundamental to this interpretation of Matthew 24 is Kik’s explanation of verse 34, the “key” to the chapter. If Kik is wrong here, his whole postmillennial conception of the earthly future collapses like a house of cards.
“This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
Does Christ teach that every last particular in the preceding verses was fulfilled exhaustively in A. D. 70? The answer can be found HERE. Oh, and as to your question whether I have read Boettner's The Millennium, the answer is a decidedly, "Yes!". In fact, I bought my copy from Dr. Boettner himself, along with all his other works. 
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
Originally Posted By: Hitch Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Im begining to wonder though, since you adopt the DF interpretation of 'soon' if you also use their interpretation of 'generation '?
It a simple matter of reading the opening of the Revelation and taking the plain statements at face value or reading the latter parts of the book and claiming 'that couldnt have possibly happened yet' therefore verse one must take on a meaning that has no connection to the text. Meaning 'soon' and 'at hand' cannot set the context for understanding the overall meaning of the work and implying that insofar as those events coming to pass ,there was and is no first century relevance. 'Symantec gymnastics' indeed. Like it or not that is exactly what Walvoord & Co have done and , as I said before , for the same reasons. If you want to leave it here thats fine but this is only shining a light on the obvious and not the ' ad hominem slur' you tried to make it.
Oh, and as to your question whether I have read Boettner's The Millennium, the answer is a decidedly, "Yes!". In fact, I bought my copy from D[color:#CC33CC]r. Boettner himself, along with all his other works. grinI cant help but wonder whether you rolled your eyes while reading chapter nine. 2. I have already stated that I hold to historic, biblical Amillennialism, a tenet of which is the "already but not yet" principle. Yes, there are certain events which came to pass which were either a full or partial fulfillment of some prophecies. What I reject is the Postmillenialist idea that the majority of prophecy was fulfilled pre-AD 70, which is akin to hyper-Preterism. From David Engelsma's excellent series, here is a quote from some of the more well known authorities of the Postmillennarian camp: That is a given. It is important to me that anyone reading understands that my conclusions are not conjured up from thin air but based on and very nearly identical to those of Boettner and Gentry, authors you cited as opponents of 'Hyper-preterism'. It is even more odd to me that you would go on and post What I reject is the Postmillenialist idea that the majority of prophecy was fulfilled pre-AD 70, which is akin to hyper-Preterism with your personal knowledge of Boettner and Gentry's positions. Looking back ,without re-reading every post, it seemed to me at the time ,as it does now you were trying to present my argument as someting at the least tarnished by hyper -preterism, and I think your quote leaves out any question. that wasnt kosher of you and it disturbs me. Right now I cant tell what you rare trying to convey; Are, in your view Boettner and Gentry orthodox opponents of hyper-preterism or akin to it or somehow both ?
Last edited by Hitch; Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
The purpose here is to gather the best evidence from Scripture in support of the bodily return of Christ. If nothing else comes of it so far we have demonstrated, with a clear display of disagreement with in the camp, that many of the 'proofs' taken from the gospels do not fit best evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
The purpose here is to gather the best evidence from Scripture in support of the bodily return of Christ. If nothing else comes of it so far we have demonstrated, with a clear display of disagreement with in the camp, that many of the 'proofs' taken from the gospels do not fit best evidence. I seriously doubt that you would find many, if any, either within the board's membership or among visitors in general who would deny the bodily return of Christ. All of the historic Reformed Confessions hold to the physical, bodily return of Christ. In fact throughout the entire spectrum of "broad" Christianity, I suspect that this would be something held by the majority as well. And this view exists because it is taught in Scripture. Soooooo, what's your point? 
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
The purpose here is to gather the best evidence from Scripture in support of the bodily return of Christ. If nothing else comes of it so far we have demonstrated, with a clear display of disagreement with in the camp, that many of the 'proofs' taken from the gospels do not fit best evidence. I seriously doubt that you would find many, if any, either within the board's membership or among visitors in general who would deny the bodily return of Christ. Thats a given Pilgrim why state something so obvious? What are you trying to imply ? All of the historic Reformed Confessions hold to the physical, bodily return of Christ. In fact throughout the entire spectrum of "broad" Christianity, I suspect that this would be something held by the majority as well. Well then a Reformed forum should be the best possible place to look right ? And this view exists because it is taught in Scripture. Soooooo, what's your point? The point is to locate those passages that best support the teaching. I have no idea what is so hard for you understand about that or why it is a problem.
Last edited by Hitch; Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
The point is to locate those passages that best support the teaching. I have no idea what is so hard for you understand about that or why it is a problem. Perhaps it is your less than precise way of communicating what it is exactly you are asking and/or stating? You wrote: The purpose here is to gather the best evidence from Scripture in support of the bodily return of Christ. If nothing else comes of it so far we have demonstrated, with a clear display of disagreement with in the camp, that many of the 'proofs' taken from the gospels do not fit best evidence. One could and have wondered if you are saying that there is no actual 'proof', at least in the Gospels, that Christ will return bodily, despite the fact that some of us have expressed the opposite, i.e., there is ample proof not only to be found in the Gospels but throughout the NT for a bodily return of Christ. Your less than congenial approach which several have also noticed and communicated to me in private doesn't help matters either. It tends to cloud things even further making it difficult for some of us to understand where you are coming from. And it has deterred several from even entering into dialog with you in this thread. Perhaps this might be something you could ponder a bit and make it a matter or prayer?
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Addict
|
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371 |
The point is to locate those passages that best support the teaching. I have no idea what is so hard for you understand about that or why it is a problem. Perhaps it is your less than precise way of communicating what it is exactly you are asking and/or stating? You wrote: The purpose here is to gather the best evidence from Scripture in support of the bodily return of Christ. If nothing else comes of it so far we have demonstrated, with a clear display of disagreement with in the camp, that many of the 'proofs' taken from the gospels do not fit best evidence. One could and have wondered if you are saying that there is no actual 'proof', at least in the Gospels, that Christ will return bodily, despite the fact that some of us have expressed the opposite, i.e., there is ample proof not only to be found in the Gospels but throughout the NT for a bodily return of Christ. The 'best evidence' is that on which the most qualified teachers agree. If Gentry says passage A means one thing and Pilgrim says it means something else entirely then passage A is probably not the best evidence Your less than congenial approach which several have also noticed and communicated to me in private doesn't help matters either. It tends to cloud things even further making it difficult for some of us to understand where you are coming from. And it has deterred several from even entering into dialog with you in this thread. Perhaps this might be something you could ponder a bit and make it a matter or prayer? FerPeteSake we are grownups here if someone has a problem or a potential problem with me shouldnt I be the first place to look into it and settle what ever it is? Then if that is unsatisfactory you go to the ad-min. I apologize if I scared , or offended anyone that was not my intent, that said ,there is nothing in my posts that should have had such an effect. Im sorry I came here looking for help. I leave you the last word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,080 Likes: 16
ExCharisma
|
|
ExCharisma
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,080 Likes: 16 |
Isn't it possible that many of these Scriptures have multiple meanings? For example, Jesus quotes Daniel in Matthew 24 refurring to some event future to His earthly ministry, yet we also know from history that the Daniel passage ("the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place") was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes before the incarnation. And again in 70 AD when Jerusalem was sacked. Could there be a third instance yet future? For other passages as well?
Y'all are a lot smarter than I am... I hardly feel qualified to enter into this conversation. But I wonder if a lot of the "already and not yet" eschetological passages have multiple fulfillments, perhaps both figurative and literal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
Im sorry I came here looking for help.
I leave you the last word. 1. In this rare case, I'll be glad to take the 'last word'. 2. Personally, I find little if any "asking for help" from your end. What I do see, however, is a very rigid and even antagonistic promotion of your eschatological view(s) with people such as Kenneth Gentry set up as messengers from God holding forth infallible truth. It isn't just "Pilgrim" who disagrees with this view.  The view which you have presented has been opposed by a multitude of people throughout history. Yes, in comparison, it might be said it is more preferrable to Dispensationalism or any of the pre-Millennial views. But those of us who see this brand of Postmillennialism as untenable must reject it as spurious nonetheless. My brother-in-law is a "Postie" and we have had several exchanges on the matter which went no where. Yet, he was hardly as 'pushy' as you have been and never accused me nor any other Ammillenialist of embracing a "DF" hermeneutic as you have done... he knows better.  Have a nice day.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,046 Likes: 285 |
Robin, I too have brought up the matter of the "already, but not yet" perspective and understanding of biblical prophecy, which is one of the major tenets of biblical Amillennialism. David Engelsma's article A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, which I have already linked to makes the same contention as your question; multiple fulfillments, e.g., the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was typological and not THE actual fulfillment of the prediction of "destruction". Lewis Neilson, in his article Why Not Postmillennialism? is in full agreement with this perspective as well and thus finds fault with the Postmillennialists' understanding of prophecy, particularly the "Golden Age" aspect of the view.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,893 Likes: 49
Needs to get a Life
|
|
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,893 Likes: 49 |
It tends to cloud things even further making it difficult for some of us to understand where you are coming from. And it has deterred several from even entering into dialog with you in this thread. Perhaps this might be something you could ponder a bit and make it a matter or prayer? I could have said those words.  Tom
Last edited by Tom; Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
147
guests, and
12
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
