Don Harris

[grafted]

Quote:I read the link earlier, and it was an interesting read, though it did leave a few questions- one being answered with the speaker line-up.
That he would be at the same event with Rood, giving a speech; to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere.

Quote:I am not sure why you want to "season" his gospel of hatred to make it appealing

Here we go again, putting words in my mouth. At what point did I ever state that I wanted to make it appealing?
Do you even have the start of a clue how honestly OFFENSIVE and UN-SCRIPTURAL that statement is?
Read your 9th commandment someday.

[sheep wrecked]

(09-13-2009 08:43 PM)grafted Wrote:  

Quote:sheep: I am not sure why you want to "season" his gospel of hatred to make it appealing

Here we go again, putting words in my mouth. At what point did I ever state that I wanted to make it appealing?
Do you even have the start of a clue how honestly OFFENSIVE and UN-SCRIPTURAL that statement is?
Read your 9th commandment someday.

Your original statement:

"As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."

You seem to want to play both sides. Your comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Michael Rood and Don Harris are not all that bad. Just take them with a grain of salt - hence my statement - season their gospel of hatred to make it appealing ---- you don't want to outright reject them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. That is not scriptural.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[grafted]

And what does that comment say... taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports- in no place, shape, form, or fashion does that elude to wanting to make it appealing. That is a word used by you, placed in my mouth.

How does me not taking the report as 100% fact until confirmation is acquired equate to you suspecting I wish to "season their gospel"? Did I ever state that?
No!, you choose to put those words in my mouth, as my intent, and at no time have I ever stated "take them with a grain of salt".

Let's revisit THIRD GRADE reading comprehension.

What did I say.

Quote:"As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."

As for "keeping up with them, that isn't my calling" which clearly indicates that I am not called to keep up with them; though as my other post states "to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere." Now why would I want that, perhaps to "bring into the light" what they might be hiding in darkness? Does that at any point, shape, form, or fashion equate to me having any belief in them, and their message? No it does not.

[quote]though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is;

As we have already shown, it is not my calling, and as the above quote shows, I would entertain reading the reports of those whose calling it is.

Quote:taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports

And what does that sentence say, pay close attention to the semicolon. What does that do to the sentence and the structure?
That would mean that what is to the right of semicolon is still a part of the sentence, (ref: independent clause). That would mean that "I would mean that what ever report I read from any person who did record it, with a grain of salt, [not taken as 100% fact,] without confirmation of other reports."

At no place or time did I ever elude to "make it appealing". That is an invention by you, placed in my mouth, where it was never uttered from.

****************

Quote:You seem to want to play both sides. Your comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Michael Rood and Don Harris are not all that bad. Just take them with a grain of salt - hence my statement - season their gospel of hatred to make it appealing ---- you don't want to outright reject them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. That is not scriptural.

At no time have I played both sides, and again you are inventing things- placing false intent.
My comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Rood and Harris are not all that bad- where was that ever stated? Do you state that because I refuse to believe any first reports without confirmation; two or more. At what point does that equate me having any personal belief in them? Again you are falsely accusing.

Who is being scriptural and who is not Sheep.

[Vic]

Hi grafted,

I obviously should have read the forum before looking at email this morning.

(09-13-2009 04:45 AM)grafted Wrote:  I read the link earlier, and it was an interesting read, though it did leave a few questions- one being answered with the speaker line-up.
That he would be at the same event with Rood, giving a speech; to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere.

I have always viewed "any" mass media "preacher type" to be a servant of the $, unless they prove themselves different.
It is like viewing any politician as being a servant of themselves vs the people they are supposed to be serving.

As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports.

Actually grafted, you err in your thinking. "As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."

We are called as individuals to prove all things. That means prove all to the Word of God. That is why the example of the Bereans checking the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught aligned with them. So it isn't up to just certain individuals to prove their teachings to the Word of God, we are called to 'try the spirits' to see if they are of God, and we are to make sure that the doctrine we are agreeing with can stand the test of all scriptures.

Further to that, if someone has a published or public teaching, it does not take 2 or 3 witnesses to prove whether it is right or wrong. There are thousands of witnesses who have seen what is said or not said, done or not done. It takes discernment and using the Word of God to discern between good and evil, truth and error. In other words, you are taking the concept out of context--if this is what you are referring to:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Or this issue, where Paul was going to be dealing with all the listed sin issues and would be hearing all matters established by witnesses who were present and could confirm things:

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
2Co 13:2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:

Or this. An elder in this context is someone you know in a particular fellowship--it's not someone who is a complete stranger and who you have never interacted with on a personal level.

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

If you are referring to particular behaviors are activities which are discussed with documentation--again quoted directly from the person in question---it is from the mouth of the person themselves that the issues are established.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Discernment on these things is not left to a select few. It is the responsibility of each to make sure they are not following false prophets or false teachers or false doctrine. And that can only happen by knowing the Word of God and applying it.

(09-14-2009 05:52 AM)grafted Wrote:  And what does that comment say... taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports- in no place, shape, form, or fashion does that elude to wanting to make it appealing. That is a word used by you, placed in my mouth.

It is important to not just go by someone's opinion or statements about another person. However, there is a difference in simply that or providing full documentation and biblical analysis--which each can decide whether it fits. But, the documentation should be able to be taken and evaluated---with or without any further witness on it if the documentation is rock solid--because it is the person's own words or teaching. That should be able to be easily verified by going to source. Someone's opinion on the other hand---needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

However, that said, if we are talking about heresies versus sound doctrine, and someone can tell you why something is fully contrary to Scripture and refute it Scripturally and factually and warn about the snares of say Hebrew Roots, then it would be advised to listen. Not because it's opinion, but because factually and Scripturally it can be proven false, including from the teachings of particular teachers--from their own mouths. If someone was already snared and saw the danger, it behooves us to consider why they would then warn others. If I recall, you said you were fairly young in the faith...then it stands to reason that others who have dealt with these things, might have some insight.

Ephesians 4:13-15 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Quote:How does me not taking the report as 100% fact until confirmation is acquired equate to you suspecting I wish to "season their gospel"? Did I ever state that?
No!, you choose to put those words in my mouth, as my intent, and at no time have I ever stated "take them with a grain of salt".

Let's revisit THIRD GRADE reading comprehension.

Let me remind you, grafted. I know you are venting but let me remind you.

Quote:What did I say.

Quote:"As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."

As for "keeping up with them, that isn't my calling" which clearly indicates that I am not called to keep up with them; though as my other post states "to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere." Now why would I want that, perhaps to "bring into the light" what they might be hiding in darkness? Does that at any point, shape, form, or fashion equate to me having any belief in them, and their message? No it does not.

Quote:though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is;

As we have already shown, it is not my calling, and as the above quote shows, I would entertain reading the reports of those whose calling it is.

Quote:taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports

And what does that sentence say, pay close attention to the semicolon. What does that do to the sentence and the structure?
That would mean that what is to the right of semicolon is still a part of the sentence, (ref: independent clause). That would mean that "I would mean that what ever report I read from any person who did record it, with a grain of salt, [not taken as 100% fact,] without confirmation of other reports."

Again, if you read any report, you need to be checking source documentation. That is where proving all things starts. No one is going to have all the facts, ever. But the goal isn't to have all facts on everything. The goal is to prove whether someone is teaching sound doctrine and should be listened to. Or they are teaching heresies and should be avoided and warned against.

Hebrew roots teachers have nothing to offer. You can find the Truth in the Word without compromising your beliefs and never need to hear or read anything they have to say. Because a little leaven from them, can and does leaven the whole loaf. And if you know anything about leaven, it doesn't appear to be affecting anything for the first few minutes but in a short time, it's affecting the whole. It changes perceptions and beliefs. And it changes the Word of God and being able to understand it. Therefore, to dabble in it would be in direct contradiction to what Jesus said when he warned about the leaven aka doctrine of the pharisees.

Quote:At no place or time did I ever elude to "make it appealing". That is an invention by you, placed in my mouth, where it was never uttered from.

****************

Quote:You seem to want to play both sides. Your comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Michael Rood and Don Harris are not all that bad. Just take them with a grain of salt - hence my statement - season their gospel of hatred to make it appealing ---- you don't want to outright reject them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. That is not scriptural.

At no time have I played both sides, and again you are inventing things- placing false intent.
My comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Rood and Harris are not all that bad- where was that ever stated? Do you state that because I refuse to believe any first reports without confirmation; two or more. At what point does that equate me having any personal belief in them? Again you are falsely accusing.

Who is being scriptural and who is not Sheep.
[/quote]


I think your comments about GLC and the various leaders maybe have left the idea that one can learn good things from these HR teachers. You just have to pick and choose the good and bad from them. However you also stated you listed all those HR teachers because you did question them and wanted to know more. I think that was good, except it would have been helpful to state things a little clearer with regards to your views of them.

The bottom line is this grafted. There isn't a HR teacher that I could recommend or say was someone to be listened to. And I have researched most at one time or another. It's the same rhetoric, the same spin on the Scriptures, the same errors which lead away from Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter how they package and repackage themselves or their message to try and placate the protests---they are in serious error, and they simply have nothing to offer anyone but false teachings and/or false prophecies and false doctrine. To even entertain the notion they might have something good---is simply the carrot they want people to grab onto. There's always a little truth and much error presented. Because that allows people to accept the leaven, and it is a tactic used to advantage to turn people away from the Truth and obedience of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. We aren't to have anything to do with those things.

[sheep wrecked]

(09-14-2009 05:52 AM)grafted Wrote:  And what does that comment say... taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports- in no place, shape, form, or fashion does that elude to wanting to make it appealing. That is a word used by you, placed in my mouth.

How does me not taking the report as 100% fact until confirmation is acquired equate to you suspecting I wish to "season their gospel"? Did I ever state that?
No!, you choose to put those words in my mouth, as my intent, and at no time have I ever stated "take them with a grain of salt".

Let's revisit THIRD GRADE reading comprehension.

What did I say.

Quote:"As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."

As for "keeping up with them, that isn't my calling" which clearly indicates that I am not called to keep up with them; though as my other post states "to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere." Now why would I want that, perhaps to "bring into the light" what they might be hiding in darkness? Does that at any point, shape, form, or fashion equate to me having any belief in them, and their message? No it does not.

Quote:though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is;

As we have already shown, it is not my calling, and as the above quote shows, I would entertain reading the reports of those whose calling it is.

[quote]taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports

And what does that sentence say, pay close attention to the semicolon. What does that do to the sentence and the structure?
That would mean that what is to the right of semicolon is still a part of the sentence, (ref: independent clause). That would mean that "I would mean that what ever report I read from any person who did record it, with a grain of salt, [not taken as 100% fact,] without confirmation of other reports."

At no place or time did I ever elude to "make it appealing". That is an invention by you, placed in my mouth, where it was never uttered from.

****************

Quote:You seem to want to play both sides. Your comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Michael Rood and Don Harris are not all that bad. Just take them with a grain of salt - hence my statement - season their gospel of hatred to make it appealing ---- you don't want to outright reject them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. That is not scriptural.

At no time have I played both sides, and again you are inventing things- placing false intent.
My comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Rood and Harris are not all that bad- where was that ever stated? Do you state that because I refuse to believe any first reports without confirmation; two or more. At what point does that equate me having any personal belief in them? Again you are falsely accusing.

Who is being scriptural and who is not Sheep.

Hi Grafted,

I apologize for offending you. It was not my intent. My distaste for Hebrew Roots comes from "intimate" knowledge of the movement and it's promoters, who are enemies of the Gospel and sometimes that reflects on my responses.

I find it difficult to understand your position because you appear to believe that you can pick out the good and leave the bad when it comes to the teachers on GLC, thus my comments about "seasoning". I think Vic did a good job explaining why this won't work. It seems to be a concept that is hard to grasp because so many are taught that we can pick and choose from what we hear and decide what to keep and throw out the rest depending on our own perceptions. Unfortunately this ends with people getting messed up with a skewed view of the truth. This is what I meant by you playing both sides - because you are willing to listen to the GLC teachers and try to "play them" to see if they have anything worthwhile to listen to - which would "make it appealing".

Usually when someone says that they "take it with a grain of salt", they mean they still accept what is said, but are a bit wary. I don't see your position as being "wary". You appear to want to give the benefit of the doubt, which is a different perspective and means that you are not able to dismiss a teaching very easily because you want to see the good in it. At least that is what I understand from your posts which indicate that you listen to GLC - as seems to be a common practice with you. This makes it appear as if you think they have something worthwhile to "teach" in spite of all that we shown you contrary to that.

If people don't approve or like our research, then then can always do the research for themselves - which I believe the Scriptures tell us to do. If people depend on questionable sources for their "research" then they are no closer to the truth than when they started.

[Nurse]

Hello to all. I have been a member of this forum for a while now and I believe I introduced myself way back at the beginning, but I'm not sure - I've been on quite a few forums since then.

My concern is about Don Harris and what is written here about him. I was drawn into the "Hebrew Roots" movement several years ago. I live right in the city where GLC originates and I've seen many, many new teachers come around. I first saw Don Harris on GLC and I realize that he used to be a part of Michael Rood's organization and then left in 2007.

I have been listening to a great deal of Don Harris' radio/television/audio files. I do not believe he is a "Hebrew Roots" guy. I think that he once was - I have heard him say that he once was just like them - did what the rabbis said to do, relied on the mishna and the talmud for "additional" interpretation, etc. etc. But I believe he is trying to minister to those who have been drawn in to Hebrew Roots - trying to show us all the errors in those teachings.

Yes, he does observe Saturday Sabbath - and so do I. No, he does not observe Christmas and Easter - and neither do I now that I know how those celebrations came about. But I still believe that Jesus was born of a virgin right here on earth and that He was crucified, buried and did raise again on the third day. And I know that Don Harris believes this also. And yes, Don does celebrate the seven festivals/feast days/appointed times of our God. I don't understand how this can be wrong. To remember our God as many times as possible is a good thing, isn't it?

People - all of us - can be mislead in our lives and our Christian walk. The Bible is full of stories of this happening. But people can change and receive revelation from God about wrong thinking. I believe this happened to Don Harris. There are things that he talks about that are hard to hear - but I believe they are truth when I search it out in the scriptures for myself.

I have learned a whole lot from the seekgod website and I appreciate all the work that has gone in to presenting all the information. It has helped me so much with regard to Hebrew Roots teachers and problems. If what I am saying is wrong, please give me more information. Thank you.

[Rose of Shushan]

Hi Nurse welcome back to the forum.Yes you have posted here before once where you introduced yourself and spoke of "the hebrew roots deception".
Your post was confusing to me in that you seem to still seem to follow Hebrew roots and yet you seem to think that you don't and that Harris doesn't either.
A large part of hebrew roots stuff is to do with observing the festivals or feasts given to the Children of Israel under the Old Covenant.Since you wrote

Quote:Yes, he does observe Saturday Sabbath - and so do I. No, he does not observe Christmas and Easter - and neither do I now that I know how those celebrations came about. But I still believe that Jesus was born of a virgin right here on earth and that He was crucified, buried and did raise again on the third day. And I know that Don Harris believes this also. And yes, Don does celebrate the seven festivals/feast days/appointed times of our God. I don't understand how this can be wrong. To remember our God as many times as possible is a good thing, isn't it?

Hebrew roots is largely about Sabbath and observing the feasts.Or supposedly observing because today no-one can observe them in the way they were prescribed in the Torah of Moses.All of them involved animal sacrifices and or the involvement of the priests.
The only thing you haven't mentioned is the rest of the Torah pertaining to eating and living such as keeping niddah, kashrut etc.So I don't know if you also follow the dietary and life-style restrictions too.Even if you didn't, the rest of the practices you mentioned are enough to put you under the Hebrew Roots camp.
Please don't take that from me badly, it's just the way I see it,having been ensared into it all myself in the past.
As to celebrating all these things being "wrong" I'd say they are more inappropriate than wrong.At the same time it is hard for me to judge the situation with you since I don't know exactly where you are at in your thinking in relation to all these things.
Having come out of hebrew roots stuff myself I can understand that we can remember the OT feasts through the light of the New Covenant.
I also understand the need for ritual feasts,merrymaking etc and can see why some would choose the hebrew calendar to focus the festivities around.
What I do find kind of strange and a bit irking is that many of the feasts in the jewish calendar were not primarily for merrymaking and messianics seem to just use the jewish feasts for that purpose.Or the habit of turning a jewish holiday like Purim which celebrates a mass killing into a merrymaking occasion.What happened to turn the other cheek etc?
I can also understand that believers from a jewish background would still "celebrate" jewish holidays in their own way but not for christians to adopt them without really thinking through what it is they're actually doing and if it glorifies Christ.

[Vic]

(09-22-2011 05:42 PM)Nurse Wrote:  Hello to all. I have been a member of this forum for a while now and I believe I introduced myself way back at the beginning, but I'm not sure - I've been on quite a few forums since then.

My concern is about Don Harris and what is written here about him. I was drawn into the "Hebrew Roots" movement several years ago. I live right in the city where GLC originates and I've seen many, many new teachers come around. I first saw Don Harris on GLC and I realize that he used to be a part of Michael Rood's organization and then left in 2007.

I have been listening to a great deal of Don Harris' radio/television/audio files. I do not believe he is a "Hebrew Roots" guy. I think that he once was - I have heard him say that he once was just like them - did what the rabbis said to do, relied on the mishna and the talmud for "additional" interpretation, etc. etc. But I believe he is trying to minister to those who have been drawn in to Hebrew Roots - trying to show us all the errors in those teachings.

Yes, he does observe Saturday Sabbath - and so do I. No, he does not observe Christmas and Easter - and neither do I now that I know how those celebrations came about. But I still believe that Jesus was born of a virgin right here on earth and that He was crucified, buried and did raise again on the third day. And I know that Don Harris believes this also. And yes, Don does celebrate the seven festivals/feast days/appointed times of our God. I don't understand how this can be wrong. To remember our God as many times as possible is a good thing, isn't it?

People - all of us - can be mislead in our lives and our Christian walk. The Bible is full of stories of this happening. But people can change and receive revelation from God about wrong thinking. I believe this happened to Don Harris. There are things that he talks about that are hard to hear - but I believe they are truth when I search it out in the scriptures for myself.

I have learned a whole lot from the seekgod website and I appreciate all the work that has gone in to presenting all the information. It has helped me so much with regard to Hebrew Roots teachers and problems. If what I am saying is wrong, please give me more information. Thank you.

Hi Nurse,

Thank you for sharing and spending time reading here. I am glad the information has been of help to you.

Yes people can be deceived and people can come out of deception. However I also believe that when someone steps into a leadership role and moves from deception to other deception---or claims to have come out of deception, they need to fully prove they are sound in the faith. That doesn't come from one day deciding something they had always been pushing as true, like HR and Michael Rood, and then say well I have the truth now. It's different than what I had before.

I believe when someone has been deceived, they shouldn't be in a teaching position until at least some considerable length of time has passed where they have learned sound doctrine and can prove they hold sound doctrine. I don't believe Don fits that even to come close to that type of criteria. People in HR have a habit of reinventing themselves. I have seen it over and over again, so they can have adherents. It's simply the way it is.

Celebrating the feasts---they were given to Israel to be followed to the letter as God given directions of the how, when, where etc. Not one person can be keeping the feasts according to God's parameters because there is no Temple, no priesthood to give the required animal sacrifices, including a sin sacrifice.

We know as believers that Jesus Christ is and was the final sacrifice for all sin. There can be no other. Nor can there be one under the Sinai covenant because of no temple, etc. Therefore for someone to claim to keep any of the feasts, is not correct, according to the Scriptures. They had to be kept as God dictated, otherwise one is guilty of not keeping the whole law--to which they are bound.

HR varies in presentation but the end result is still to be under the law in some way, because no one can keep it. And we know:

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.