He DID call it adultery...What are you talking about???
And then you claimed the charge of fornication was an act before marriage...
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
As we can clearly see, the context is a married wife...The context is a married wife who commits fornication (obviously with someone other than the husband) relieves the husband of causing the charge of adultery... I don't see how you think you can twist these simple, easy to understand verses into something that it clearly does not say...
Adultery is breaking the wedding bond...Fornication is whoring about...
The context is a married wife who commits fornication (obviously with someone other than the husband) relieves the husband of causing the charge of adultery…
No, the adultery comes after the divorce. Nor can the porneia/fornication relieve the husband from causing her to commit adultery. Look again, anyone who marries her after the divorce commits adultery.
And then you claimed the charge of fornication was an act before marriage…
No, you completely misunderstand. The fornication is not an act before the marriage but rather an impediment that invalidates it. It is the union itself that is porneia/fornication. This is why with such a divorce there is no adultery if she marries. Any other reading makes a mockery of what Jesus says just before when he rejects the Mosaic law allowing for a bill of divorce. If adultery did indeed dissolve the wedding bond Jesus would have simply said so rather than attack the Mosaic law. Again, there is no such "exception" in Luke.