Wife Looks Closer At Photo, Files For Divorce

Wife Looks Closer At Photo, Files For Divorce

Wife Looks Closer At Photo, Files For Divorce. A Husband Divorced His Wife After Looking Closer At This Photo He Took Of Her with proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, filed for divorce.

►Don’t forget to subscribe and share
please help us to reach the 500.000 subscriber by clicking on the link

#facts_world #amazingpeople #stories

Marine Serving Our Country Filed For Divorce As Soon As He Saw This Photo His Wife Sent. Marine Serving Our Country Filed For Divorce As Soon As He Saw This Photo His Wife Sent It’s a story all military families share.


  1. Rings can hurt the fingers also
    Sometimes as a female I don’t wear my ring also because my finger needs air
    She’s crazy

  2. The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ’s death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. 

    Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. 

    The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. 

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. 

    The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ’s death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ’s death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus’s fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. 

    Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod’s brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. 

    Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one’s unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.   

    Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.

    The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let’s look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.

    The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God’s law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.

    Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ’s teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark’s Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew’s Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

  3. Cannot believe this much effort was put into this video. The editor must have been thinking “what a piece of junk, but they will pay me anyway.”

  4. This is the dumbest vid I ever saw and I want my 5 mins back. Wtf? Seriously? The dude loses a ring and his psycho chick flips out and concocts a ridiculous theory…the end. Wth! No proof no evidence and the story isn’t even resolved because she stayed with him and decided to believe him. With all the heinous shit happening in the world you decide to waste our time with this lame ass non story? What a joke.

  5. These videos are nothing but click bait, but how did they manage
    to get Elmer Fudd to do the narration?
    You wascaly wabbits!

  6. The woman over-reacted. She accused him of lying to her without any ethical proof! Her place of reasoning is without merit…Let the woman file for divorce and get out!

  7. If it took her four years to notice a different ring I would say she wasn’t paying a lot of attention to her husband either.

  8. You whoever you are these stories are so stupid. I keep expecting one day one of these will be realistic they are all the same drivel.
    Worst of all I hate that watching this like many of us does with expectation adds to your popularity on youtube.
    Too bad I do not believe in censorship.

  9. I never in a million years thought I would see myself on YouTube , or should I say see my modeling pic when I was eight yrs old . Holy crap this is so weird . The little girl on the pictures is not whoever this story is about . It was taken at riverbank zoo in sc . I used to model for legends academy . My mom was photographer and wanted me to get into modeling , I flipping hated it ! Those ppl in the picture are not my relatives lol. It was so awkward having a fake mom and dad and brother at times . Lol . Ile never forget this day cause I had to wear a sweater and it was hot and I had to point and looked like I was surprised and it was just annoying and I got paid 80 dollars lol for a days worth of work , well my mom did lol. This is so funny . I never ever knew what came of those pics other than in the riverbank zoo pamphlet lol . Sharing with my mom now this is crazy . And btw me and my husband don’t wear our rings anymore unless we are going to an event . We are best friends and are past a ring being the symbol of our love and bond for each other . It’s ok to wear them or not , it shouldn’t mean anything . If u feel like your partner not wearing their ring is showing they don’t love u or up to no good then u should figure out your relationship cause something is very wrong .

  10. So, you put a video up, making it a riddle… assuming at the end…,you give the answer.
    Nope, you decide to leave it still a question.
    Wasted 5 minutes of my life, that I can’t get back.
    Good looking out.

  11. I couldn’t wear my wedding ring ,I drove a truck my whole life and it was a very physical job ,especially in my early years! My dad did the same work and lost his finger one day at work he was making a delivery and jumped off the side of the truck and had his wedding band on and it got caught on a nail or something while he was trying to grip the side of the truck as he jumped and it got caught while he went down and his finger came right off from the knuckle down and a police officer happened to be close by and picked up his finger and put in a bag of ice and rushed him to the hospital and the surgeon could not save his finger! So he had the rest of it removed being he didn’t want half a finger he rather have nothing there! Ever since he told me that story I never wore it again unless it was a weekend and I was going somewhere like a party, etc. Otherwise I never really put it on but never cheated on my wife!! So I think everyone’s situation is different and sometimes people do over react!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.