Adultery?? Most Christians get this wrong!!

In depth and sensitive discussions and posts on my Patreon.
Books:

Swag:

Cash App: $PeterGRamboSr
Paypal: @peterrambo1
Connect:
Telegram: @PeteRambo

[Arrozconchopsticks]

Someone brought to light what Matthew 5:28 in the Tyndale Bible says, which predates the KJV: "But I say vnto you that whosoeuer looketh on a wyfe lustynge after her hathe comitted advoutrie with hir alredy in his hert."

[PalmettoParatrooper]

If your church wants to excommunicate you over polygyny, you need a new church anyway.

[kaijuNo]

Thank you for making this video Pete! Most Christians and Catholics don’t know what Adultery really means. It’s sad seeing these men and women suffer because of false teachings. I will even go as far as to say that the modern church creates confusion.

[BibleMarriages]

Exodus 20:14 - you shall not commit adultery (sleeping with another man’s woman)

Exodus 20:17 - you shall not covet (lust after) your neighbor’s wife (that adultery with her, in your heart).

Jesus was teaching Exodus 20:14-17

But when you believe He abolished the law, you can’t see that.

Great teaching as usual brother!

[RestoringTheKingdom]

Yep! They get it wrong because they start from a faulty premise.

[Stealthtrader]

They need to repeal the Edmunds Act in the wicked country of America. Those feminists would lose their minds lol

[jenmarworld]

Aaaaand, even nowadays when you are studying the online formats of Bible concordances, you have to really look into some of the current stuff even more carefully, cause they're trying to catch up to us discovering the truth, and they try to leave out pertinent parts to keep the truth hidden. You caught one during one of your videos awhile back, but you were able to do a cross reference and kinda find the back door that they had tried to hide.

[Whipperin]

In the Old Testament, adultery is specifically defined as a sexual relationship involving a married woman and someone who is not her husband. According to this definition, the act is considered adultery because it breaches the marital covenant from the perspective of the woman's marriage. Sex involving an unmarried woman does not fall under this strict definition of adultery. For example, the Seventh Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18), underscores the importance of marital fidelity by focusing on the sanctity of a married woman's exclusive bond with her husband. The penalties prescribed in Leviticus 20:10 further highlight the seriousness of this offense within the Old Testament’s framework of preserving marital integrity.

[randolphsloan]

So many preachers are teaching lies.. this is a big problem..!!

[TheOrdinal]

I know we always don't see eye to eye but damn it's good to see the Godfather back on deck!

[hermano]

I have been saying this whole thing for years. People have been blinded by lies

[elijah]

What about Exodus 20:17? It seems to be a separate command from the prohibition on adultery, but its definition involves coveting a man’s wife.

Exodus 20:17 - “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

[Jubal.Harshaw]

Let's discuss the word "fulfill" and how Christians misinterpret and misuse this reference. Christians are adamant about the idea that "fulfill" meant "Jesus has fulfilled the law and therefore, it has been abolished, " i.e., done away with even though Jesus himself said otherwise and taught to the contrary. Christians erroneously and incorrectly teach that Jesus came to NOT destroy the law, but somehow through the fulfillment of the law, it was destroyed, done away with. Their poor logic suggests that once the law is “fulfilled”, there is no longer any need for it and therefore it was effectively ‘destroyed’ and no longer observed. They fail to specify WHICH laws have been done away with, like: murder, theft, rape, false witness, coveting, etc. I suppose each of those have been abolished as well.
The problem is that they are not looking at the proper use, the etymology of the original Aramaic word used here as well as its original intention. The ORIGINAL Aramaic word used here is actually D'MALA, from the Hebrew derivation of MALEY, or the Greek PLEROO. Specifically it means to ‘specify in truth’ or more colloquially, to ‘elucidate’ or make clear. So, by making them ‘clear’ and understanding them fully then you are satisfying the Commandments by obeying them through clear understanding of their meaning.
This makes perfect sense when you consider that Jesus was a TEACHER, which is the literal meaning of the title: rabbi. Furthermore, we have full prophetic assurance that the coming messiah would never annul Torah; rather he magnified Torah and wrote Torah upon the hearts and minds of his people (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus carried out through CORRECT interpretation and teaching of Torah all "ben Yoseph" prophecies required by the coming of messiah, Hebrew scripture and the prophetic writings. He performed and explained prophecies, just as he performed and taught Torah which was his duty and obligation of any rabbi; otherwise, he would not have been able to explain the truth of biblical scripture to the masses.
Fulfilling the Torah Matthew 5:17 Do not think I have come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I tell you I have not come to destroy (ashrea--arva) but to explain truth, clarify and teach (amala) therefore, NOT putting an end to. It would make no sense for him to say that he doesn’t come to destroy but rather to destroy or put an end to. That is a senseless statement. It is also an absolute impossibility for "destroying" and "completing or placing an end to" Torah to take place at the exact same time or to even have the same meaning! Therefore, the Christian’s incorrect interpretation of the text is putting them in opposition to one another; so if it isn't A but it is B, then B cannot be the same thing as A! As basic as this is, mainstream Christianity has levied a false assertion that "fulfilling the Torah" means that it is no longer necessary or viable, i.e. destroyed even though within the text Jesus states fully that destroying is NOT his goal!
In closing, it seems apropos to direct you (case-in-point) to Psalm 20:4 “May he grant you your hearts desire and ‘fully make clear’ (i.e. understand) (male--alm) all your counsel.’
Finally, in Deuteronomy 30:11 G-d CLEARLY states, "For these commandments I give you today are not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Now, I personally would not want to call G-d a liar - so I am going to do my best to follow His commandments - IN FULL - as G-d taught us WE CAN DO!

[STATIC_KINGDOM]

Great teaching as always bro Pete! Question for you brother, whats you opinion on the book of Sirach? Specifically chapter 25, i find it to be quite accurate but the last verse addresses the commandment of divorce and seems to line up with deuteronomy 24:1 in terms of the thing of uncleanness that is the reason for divorce. Ive studied that passage a lot, and always wondered why adultery is seen as the only reason to divorce yet adultery is punishable by death.

Here is the passage from sirach 25:13 No wound is as serious as wounded love. No troubles are as serious as the troubles that women cause. 14 No sufferings are worse than the sufferings caused by people who hate you. No revenge is worse than revenge taken by an enemy. 15 No poison is deadlier than the poison of a snake, and no anger is deadlier than the anger of a woman.[e]

16 I would rather live in the same house with a lion or a dragon than with a bad wife. 17 When a wife is in a bad mood, her expression changes until she looks like an angry bear. 18 Her husband has to go and eat with the neighbors, where he can't hold back his bitter sighs.

19 Compared with the troubles caused by a woman, any other trouble looks small. May such women suffer the fate of sinners!

20 A quiet man living with a nagging wife is like an old man climbing up a sandy hill.

21 Never lose your head over a woman's beauty, and don't try to win a woman because she is wealthy.[f] 22 When a man is supported by his wife, there is sure to be anger, arrogance, and humiliation. 23 A bad wife will make her husband gloomy and depressed, and break his heart. Show me a timid man who can never make up his mind, and I will show you a wife who doesn't make her husband happy. 24 Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her. 25 Don't let a bad wife have her way, any more than you would allow water to leak from your cistern. 26 If she won't do as you tell her, divorce her.

[johndavies]

Hi Pete .
I would love for you to do a series on "fake sins".
Shalom

[JRKARavie]

Re the married thing brother..I believe YAHUSHAH was saying everyone who looks at a married woman..commits adultery (if they entertain thoughts of lust or lustfull intentions for her. A man is free to desire a single woman.

[JRKARavie]

Shalom brother (the term least from my understanding) actually means LESS THAN LEAST. In other words they do not make it into the kingdom because of their TORAH-LESS -NESS.

[rgmann]

I fully agree that Matthew 5:28 refers solely to "lusting" or unlawfully "coveting" (Gk: epithumeia) another man's wife. However, if we consistently apply that interpretation to other matters, it would mean that it's not sinful for a man to view (and be aroused by) sexual imagery, such as drawings, paintings, sculptures, still photos, or moving pictures of normal heterosexual couples or solo females engaging in sexual activity. Correct? If you disagree, then my next question is where's the law or command from God that "prohibits" the viewing of sexual imagery? I simply don't see it anywhere in God's law. I see a number of sexual relationships being explicitly prohibited (e.g., Lev. 18; Deut. 22), but nowhere does God prohibit a man from viewing sexual imagery per se, which clearly existed quite prominently throughout the ancient world (e.g., the Kama Sutra, sculptures, drawings, etc.). Any thoughts?

[lightofthehillministries]

Shalom Brother great job on those definitions. Keep it up.

[mthulisidube]

Did he change the animal sacrificial system?