Could "The human soul is created at the moment of conception." be defined as dogma?

For something to be declared a Dogma, two conditions are required:

1) the statement is within the scope of Dogma. This is, it refers to faith or morals.

2) the statement does not contradict other Dogmas (because the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, as it is infallible on matters of faith and morals).

Regarding 1), it seems clear that the creation of the soul is about faith. Footnote 19 of the Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, discussing the views of the timing of the infusion of the soul, states:

  It is not within the competence of science to decide between these two views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent . . . supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed. One finds here two important points: the question of when the soul is infused is not one that can be decided by any empirical means, and even if the soul were to be infused at some later point in embryological development, the zygote that is present at fertilization is surely a human life. As such it deserves the same respect as is due to any other human being.

Thus, in the most crude terms, the issue of the creation of the soul is not within the real of science, and therefore it belongs to the real of faith.

Regarding 2), the Church has not infallibly pronounced on the issue and there is no other infallible teaching related to this, beyond that (i) the soul has no pre-existence (Origen's related heresy; Enchiridion symbolorum, 403, 456) and that (ii) the soul is immortal (doesn't die with the body).

A comprehensive list of official teachings pertaining the soul can be found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (second edition, 2003). I quote in extenso:

  Solemn Magisterium. Interpreting officially the witness of the Scriptures and tradition concerning the human soul, the teaching authority of the Church solemnly affirms that the Triune God is the creator of the human creature ‘‘constituted, as it were, alike of the spirit and the body’’ (Lateran Council IV in 1215: ibid. 800; cf. Vatican Council I: ibid. 3002); ‘‘that man has one rational and intellectual soul’’ (Council of Constantinople IV in 870: ibid. 657; there the doctrine of the two souls in man was condemned as heretical); ‘‘that the rational or intellective soul is the form of the human body in itself and essentially’’ (Council of Vienne in 1312 against Peter John Olivi: ibid. 902, cf. 900, 1440); and that the human soul is ‘‘immortal and multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied . . .’’ (Lateran Council V in 1513 against some humanistic Aristotelians who renewed the Averroistic monopsychism: ibid. 1440).

  Ordinary Magisterium. Man is so substantially one, according to the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, that his unity (which is not accidental) has ontological priority before the real and irreducible plurality of his being. He is one in origin, being, and final destiny (Enchiridion symbolorum 502, 2828, 3005, 3221–22, 3224). Therefore each consideration of a part or one aspect of man implies repercussions concerning all parts and aspects. Any division of man is always inadequate, because as a microcosm (ibid. 3771) he must be considered as a whole. However, since there is an essential difference between matter and SPIRIT (ibid. 3891; cf. 3022–24), there is a real plurality of realities in man which are irreducible to each other. Thus the spiritual soul is not an emanation or a part of man’s matter or body (ibid. 3022, 3220–21, 3896), and it is equally true that the matter cannot be deduced from or reduced to the finite human spiritual soul. Both need a special creative act of God in order to exist, because they are ontologically different (ibid. 360, 3896). Thus man possesses the vital (ibid. 2833) and constitutive principle of his being, i.e., one spiritual, simple, and substantial soul (ibid. 791, 801, 900, 1440), which despite the substantial unity of being in man, is in its being and meaning essentially different and independent of matter (ibid. 1007, 3002, 3022, 3220–24, 3896), and immortal (ibid. 1440). Since the soul is spiritual in itself, man is not composed of three different realities, i.e., body, soul, and spirit, but is a substantial unity in body and spiritual soul only (as opposed to all sorts of trichotomy: ibid. 301, 502, 657, 900, 902, 1440–41, 2828). The approval by the ordinary magisterium of the Thomistic theses concerning the human soul (ibid. 3613–22) must be understood as a favorable reception of them as one of the best illustrations of the mystery of man.

In conclusion, the proposition could be declared as dogma.


Biblical basis or rationale for Christian Identity Movement?

In Luke here there's a prophecy about the restoration of Israel, pretty similar to many found in the psalms.
Some white supremacists, including these people, believe that the 10 lost tribes of Israel (all except Judah and Benjamin, I think) went to Northern Europe and became the English, and sometimes all the Celtic & Germanic people.
So these verses about Israel being "saved" is evidence to their minds that all the tribes would be preserved, and they see their race as fulfilling that.

Read more about the ten lost tribes if you want to know more.

This is a very biased belief that has almost zero historical evidence, and St. Paul has the view that Christians are the fulfilled children of Abraham (see his To The Romans).


Do Young Earth Creationists believe that insects, microorganisms, and animal cells died before the Fall?

This article on the Answers In Genesis website is a good introduction:

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/

One short quote:

  The Bible never uses the Hebrew term nephesh chayyah (living soul/creature) when referring to invertebrates, but it does when referring to humans and fish (Genesis 1:20; 2:7). Also, insects do not have the same sort of “blood” that vertebrates do, yet “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11) (Sarfati 2004, p. 211). It is reasonable then to assume that the pre-Fall diet of animals could have included invertebrates.

Thus the distinction is between creatures with a certain kind of blood and the breath of life and those that do not. Creatures that lacked the breath of life and blood were subject to death, but that death has no spiritual component and is not the sort of death ushered in by the fall.

UPDATE:
As to the second question about whether God created carnivores, I know of no scriptural evidence, but there is anecdotal evidence that carnivores can live on fruits and vegetables. Here are two articles, one about a lion that refused to eat meat and lived a long, healthy life, and the other about how crocodiles love to eat fruit.

https://answersingenesis.org/reptiles/fruit-eating-crocodiles-dispel-carnivorous-misconceptions/

http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat


Are the any Christian denominations that have doctrines in place that prohibit a national flag in the worship space?

For the Catholic Church, there are no universal norms (i.e., neither in Canon Law, nor in the various liturgical books) that prohibit national flags in the sanctuary (i.e., the space where the celebration of the Eucharist actually takes place). As a result, the norms regarding the use of flags, if any, are set by the diocesan bishop.

Generally, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has discouraged the use of national flags (and the U.S. is a country in which flags in the sanctuary have become relatively common), but there is no prohibition as such.

(The source for this is chiefly an article by Edward McNamara, L.C., from Zenit.org. To see the relevant section, scroll down to the paragraph beginning “Several readers asked about….”)


What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married?

The evidence for Paul being married is fairly scant.

He writes in 1 Corinthians 9:5:

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

The implication could be made that Paul was complaining about leaving some wife behind.

In Galatians 1:14, Paul says:

"I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers"

One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin (which he never outright claimed), is that eventually he would be married.  That said, there is nothing to say that he had necessarily progressed far enough to require a wife.
On the other side (that Paul was not married), the evidence is far more convincing

1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly implies there wasn't a woman travelling with him.

1 Corinthians 7:1-7 has Paul declaring that he has the gift of celibacy.

1 Corinthians 7:8 has Paul directly saying that he is not married -

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

The tense of the verb is ambiguous as to whether he was at one point married, however. As an aorist verb, the tense is de-emphasized in any event. In at least the NIV, the ‘[a]’ is a reference to a note that the Greek word is also used for ‘widower’.  Of the 4 occurrences of this word in the NT (all in this chapter) this is supposed to be the only nonadjective form and is supposed to include a masculine suffix.  Here and also at verse 40 in the context of widows, Paul personalises the message.  When read as ‘widowers’ this chapter has a natural flow of topics but as ‘unmarried’ there is repetition.
In any event, however, it is clear that even if Paul had been married at some point, by the time he had been to Corinth, he no longer was.


According to Catholics, who are "the elect"?

According to Catholicism, who are “the elect”?

In a nutshell, this term for Catholics refers to the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

Here follows what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the subject of the Elect:

  Elect

  Denotes in general one chosen or taken by preference from among two or more; as a theological term it is equivalent to "chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favour, as set apart for eternal life". In order to determine the meaning of the word more accurately, we shall have to study its usage both in the Old Testament and the New.

  The Old Testament

  The Old Testament applies the term elect, or chosen, only to the Israelites in as far as they are called to be the people of God, or are faithful to their Divine call. The idea of such an election is common in the Book of Deuteronomy and in Isaiah 40-66. In Psalm 104:6 and 43 and 105:5, the chosen ones are the Hebrew people in as far as it is the recipient of God's temporal and spiritual blessings; in Isaiah 65:9, 15 and 23, they are the repentant Israelites, as few in number "as if a grain can be found in a cluster" (ibid., 8); in Tob., xiii, 10, they are the Israelites remaining faithful during their captivity; in Wisd., iii, 9, and iv, 15, they are God's true servants; in Sirach 24:4, 13 and 46:2, these servants of God belong to the chosen people.

  The New Testament

  The New Testament transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts 13:17) the meaning of the term from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ, either militant on earth or triumphant in heaven. Thus 1 Peter 1:1, speaks of the elect among the "strangers dispersed" through the various parts of the world; 1 Peter 2:9, represents them as "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people", called from darkness into God's marvellous light. St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Romans 8:33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30). He returns to the idea gain and again: 2 Thessalonians 2:12 sq.; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:10. St. John gives the title of elect to those who fight on the side of the Lamb against the powers of darkness (Revelation 17:14). According to Luke 18:7, God hears the cries of his elect for vengeance; according to the first two Evangelists he will shorten the last days for the sake of the elect (Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27).

  If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God's goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). In the sentence "many are called, but few are chosen", the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence "many are called, but few chosen" does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one's soul (Luke 13:23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair.

Simply put the Elect are those saved and are in heaven, thus forming the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant on earth.

What is the Church Militant?

  The Church on earth, still struggling with sin and temptation, and therefore engaged in warfare (Latin militia) with the world, the flesh, and the devil.

And what is the Church Triumphant?

  The Church of all those in heavenly glory who have triumphed over their evil inclinations, the seductions of the world, and the temptations of the evil spirit.


How does ordination confer priestly powers to Catholic priests?

For things that are simply a matter of permission, the priest gets his authority from the church. The bishop who performs the ordination confers the authority in the name ofcthe church.

For more spiritual activities, like the ability to perform mass, the power comes from God, mediated through the church.


Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture?

Perspicuity probably isn't gonna be a terribly popular word in the Catholic world. The Catholic Church doesn't hold any scripture to be self-interpreting, not even the things that seem obvious; this is a safeguard to preserve one authentic teaching authority of the Church.
In a document promoting unity between Christian Churches in the 1970's this difference was pointed out between all denominations started after the Reformation:

In the history of the Church, the difference between Catholics and Reformed has always focussed on the alternative: “Scripture and Tradition” and “Scripture only”. Catholics stressed the need for and the authority of the Church’s teaching office in the interpretation of Scripture, whereas the Reformed declared that Scripture interprets itself and, as God’s Word, must be strictly distinguished from all human tradition, desiring in this way to do justice not only to the doctrine of justification but also to the total witness of the Old and New Testaments.

THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN CHURCH AND WORLD
and also, a difference between Evangelicals and  Catholics in particular:

Evangelicals acknowledge the wisdom of listening to the Church and its teachers, past and present, as they seek to understand God's Word, but they insist that each believer must be free to exercise his or her personal responsibility before God, in hearing and obeying his Word. While the Church's interpretations are often helpful, they are not finally necessary because Scripture, under the Spirit's illumination, is self-interpreting and perspicuous (clear).
Thus, contemporaneity has come to mean different things in our two communities. Each recognizes that the Word of God must be heard for and in our world today. For Roman Catholics God's Word is contemporary in the sense that it is heard and interpreted within the living Church. For Evangelicals it is contemporary in the sense that its truth has to be applied, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to the modern world.
THE EVANGELICAL-ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE ON MISSION, 1977-1984

Catholics have always held there to be three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching.  These three in concert comprise the deposit of Faith.  I don't think you'll find evidence to the contrary in the Middle Ages or before about scripture being easy to read.  Then, it was definitely up to the Priests to interpret.  Passion plays and art were a perspicuous witness to the Gospel, but so were Priests, just like the Apostles were before them.
And the idea that Sacred Scripture is so easy to understand that any dummy can do it is shown as unbiblical by the Bible itself.  When Philip popped down for a visit in Ethiopia, the eunuch (who was probably no dummy) said.  "How can I understand what I'm reading (talking about Isaiah) unless some man shows me" (Acts 8:31).  And St. Peter says that teachings are hard to be understood by the unlearned and the unstable - and they interpret them to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).  Hopefully, I'm not misinterpreting that.
Even here, Catholics are wise to say that this is "just my opinion" of sacred scripture (even though I pulled it right out of "A Textual Concordance of the Holy Scriptures") because we don't have any teaching faculty in the Church.


It's true that Genesis 1 does not name Adam and Eve, but Genesis 2 does.  Genesis 5 mentions Adam as the first man as well, and the New Testament confirms this.  Genesis 3 ends with Eve being names as such because she would become the mother of all the living.

Genesis 5 starts with God creating man "in the image of God" and then states that Adam had a son "in his own likeness".  So, Adam was created in the image of God, then the image was a bit marred in Genesis 3, and then Adam had a son in his own likeness.

So, the Bible is in pretty strong agreement that Adam and Eve were the first people created.

The first son of Adam mentioned in Genesis 5, however, is Seth.  We are told that Cain and Abel were sons earlier than that.  The Bible does not explicitly mention any other sons or daughters of Adam and Eve, although we are told in Genesis 5 that they had other sons and daughters.  The question is, "how many did they have?"

Recalling that their command was to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that they had a large family.  It is also reasonable to assume that by the time Cain killed Abel, they had already had other sons and daughters.  We don't know how old Cain and Abel were when the first murder occurred, but if they were 16, then there could have been quite a few other children around.  After Abel's death, Adam and Eve have Seth, so it seems they are still having children that many years later.

The ages given for those who lived before the flood are quite large, so many conclude that the earth was better suited to life prior to the flood.  Indeed, a cataclysmic flood would certainly have a dire impact.

So, when the Bible mentions Cain's fear of other people, it is referring to other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and perhaps their grandchildren if Cain and Abel were older.  Adam and Eve were 130 years old when Seth was born, so it's possible that they had been having children for quite a long time (100 years).  This could allow for not only grandchildren, but great grandchildren and even more generations.

The "sons of God" could refer to the line of Seth or others who lived righteously, and the daughters of men could refer to the line of Cain and Lamech, although we can't know for sure.

It is interesting that a genealogy is given from Adam through Noah, Abraham, David and on down 4,000 years or so to Jesus.  This is more evidence that Adam is a real person, because fictitious characters don't have lineages that trace to real people.  So, the Bible presents Adam as a real person who existed in time and to whom all lineages trace back.


Why did David wish to send Uriah back home?

Unless you only have sex once it can be hard to pinpoint exactly when the child was conceived. Normal term pregnancies range from 37 to 41 weeks, a full month's time.

Bathsheba presumably contacted David as soon as she realised she had missed her period and was pregnant. David tried to get Uriah to go home and sleep with her immediately, so that he would think the child was his own. At that stage she would not have been visibly pregnant, and as long as they slept together before a month was over, he would think that her second missed period was because he had got her pregnant.

But Uriah didn't play along, and David, not being willing to confess his sin, had him killed instead.


Why did Jesus favor Peter, James and John more than the other disciples?

You're making the mistake of an argument from silence, because in spite of your assertion that "its clear" that Peter, James, and John witnessed more of Jesus' miracles, all we really know for sure is that we have records that Peter, James, and John are reported to have witnessed more miracles than the other disciples. The fact that the other followers of Jesus are not mentioned in accounts of witnessing miracles of Jesus does not mean that they were not there, and all we can conclude for certain was that it was important to the writers of the various accounts to note that Peter, James, and John were witnesses, and that it was not so important to note that Thomas or James the Less also happened to be present. Before you can ask why the other disciples were not present, you first have to establish with certainty that you were not, and in the absence of any particular evidence in support of one possibility or the other, that is impossible to do.

You should also remember that the very last verse of John's Gospel makes it clear that Jesus performed many deeds (which may or not have been miracles) which are not recorded. It is altogether possible that the other disciples witnessed more of these unrecorded deeds that Peter, James, and John did.


Did Martin Luther publish any doctrinal material of managing one's own physical death?

Luther brings up death quite a bit.  He usually positive about it.
For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:

“When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2]. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther sees death as a monster we must face and therefore should think about it often ensuring our faith in forgiveness is greater and when death finally comes, not to think of it any longer but to rely on our sense of forgiveness and think of nothing else, for this will be a day of trail:

Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.
We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther saw the guilty waving finger of the Devil as like the fiery vipers biting Israel in the desert.  The only cure was too look at Jesus on the cross.  This is the deepest insight into how to face death not being bothered by our sins in the final hour.  He say's you must not be captivated by sin, looking at your own many sins directly, or looking at all the sinners falling into hell.

You must turn your thoughts away from that and look at sin only within the picture of grace. Engrave that picture in yourself with all your power and keep it before your eyes. The picture of grace is nothing else but that of Christ on the cross. (Luther's Works Vol 42.104)


Why did people stop worshipping God after experiencing the flood?

The same way it was lost in the first place.

For the same reason that Cain killed Abel.

Noah was saved physically from the physical calamity, but he was not regenerated. He was not yet saved from sin. He was still a sinful creature as were the other members of his family. The promise from Genesis 3:15 was not yet fulfilled.

The Bible and indeed all of human history is full of the same story. It does not really matter how earth shattering a miracle is witnessed or how clearly people know that God did something (up to and including saving their hides), we all still turn away from God. It's a heart problem.

In Exodus you will find a people that in the course of one lifetime saw God repeatedly intervene on their behalf and they repeatedly turned against him.

The message of the Bible is that you and I are that people.

The solution is still forthcoming. It is found in Christ, but it's a work in progress—secured and completed at the cross but still being revealed to us today. The destruction of the corrupt earth in Noah's day and Noah's being brought over into a new creation was a TYPE or pattern of salvation: a symbol of how the real thing would be but it was not the real thing. You will find in the New Testament that the flood story is a kind of baptism.

  1 Peter 3:20-21 (ESV)
  20  because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21  Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Just as baptism is a physical symbol of being cleansed  and the reality that we will be resurrected with Christ yet it does not make us perfect or stop us from sinning, so the flood was a symbol of the same thing but it did not fix the heart problem. It didn't end the sin-nature of man.

One day, the destruction and re-creation that was foreshadowed in the flood (and in baptism) will be completed for real.

  Matthew 24:37 (ESV)
  37  For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

The corrupt wicked world that has rejected God will be judged and destroyed and God's people—the ones he chooses to save—will be brought into a the new heavens and new earth only this time with a our natures renewed to what Adam's should have been. Only then will there be a world that is imperishable and incorruptible.

What you expected to have happen after the flood will happen, but the flood was only a precursor to the real thing.


Were birthdays celebrated by believers anywhere in Holy Scriptures?

Were birthdays celebrated by believers?  The answer would turn on one's definition of "celebrate".

Does "celebrate" mean only the inclusion of cake, ice cream, balloons, streamers, presents, friends, and family singing songs, showing pictures, opening presents, pinning the tail on the donkey, and blowing out candles?  Or how "celebrate" means only about dancing girls and beheading of enemies?  Or would it be more mundane, as in I "celebrated" my birthday last month, realizing my age on the earth?

If the latter, than of course, they "celebrated" their birthdays.  For example, they knew Jesus was 12 years old when He visited the temple.  They knew John the Baptist was 30 years old when he became a priest.  One can't know these things unless someone "celebrates" one's birthday.

Again, we don't know exactly what "celebrate" meant because it is not recorded exactly how they "celebrate" those birthdays, but we do know they didn't pretend the dates didn't exist or in fact were not material to their lives.  Birthdays were obviously "celebrated".

Subsequent to the New Testament, there is the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp.  He knew he was 86 when he was tried in the fire and martyred.  Of course once you are dead, no one is observing your birthday on earth, but what is interesting is their thinking they might observe his birthday into death.

Other answers posted quote scripture examples.  There were obvious birthday "celebrations" too deviant, just as there might be today.  But there are other birthday "celebrations" in the right spirit.

PS To add, according to this site, Isaac the first Jewish baby was weaned at 24 months.  Abraham and Sarah had a great feast.  Tradition places it on his second birthday.


What is the moral status of common-law marriage?

Allowances of the law have little or no bearing on the moral standing of marriage or any other Christian practice. Where applicable we are bound to follow relevant laws in addition to the prescription of our doctrine, but this is in addition to not in place of them. Common law does not define marriage, although it may or may not make an applicable legal hoop necessary.

Most of marriage practice among Christians boils down to tradition, but the traditions are built on principles. While much variation is found in the details, the principles guiding what is or is not done are pretty fixed. Marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman entered into by profession before men and sealed by God.

How you go about that, the pieces have to all be there.  Where the profession is made -- in church or on a lawn, whether officiated by an uncle or pastor or even not at all -- doesn't matter nearly so much that a declaration is made public that two people are now married. Where they sign state paperwork before our after our not at all if not required doesn't change anything. Making such a declaration, then sleeping with someone else would be a violation of that covenant no matter where the state stands.

Christianity even honors marriage as sacred when entered into by two non Christians with a purely secular profession. God's role in the covenant relationship is something we believe just is -- even if the parties involved ignore him.

Obeying the law of the land is required, but our duties do not end where the law stops.


Why is it hard for a rich man to go to heaven?

As already mentioned, it is entirely possible for a rich man to go to heaven. The problem is that a rich man can more easily trust in his own merits or wealth. There are many proverbs that talk about that, like Proverbs 11:28 (ESV):

  Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf.

When we trust in ourselves and don't rely on Jesus and his death and resurrection for our salvation, then we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell everything he was testing him to see whether his trust and security was in Jesus or in his riches (himself).


Does New Testament accounting language have any Old Testament backing?

1. Accounting Language

It is of course a different language, but yes, the same sort of language is present in the OT as well.

Repayment - for good and for evil

  For the LORD is a God of recompense, He will fully repay Jeremiah 51:56

  Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes. Psalm 18:24

  Requite them according to their work and according to the evil of their practices; Requite them according to the deeds of their hands; Repay them their recompense.  Psalm 28:4

Our Redeemer

  As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.  Job 19:25

  Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I will help you,” declares the LORD, “ and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.  Isaiah 41:14

Seeking true profit

  Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, But righteousness delivers from death.  Proverbs 11:4

  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.  Isaiah 48:17

  How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding. For her profit is better than the profit of silver and her gain better than fine gold.  Proverbs 3:13-14

Debt

  The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.  Proverbs 13:13

Forgiveness

  But You are a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness  Nehemiah 9:17

2. Transaction / Imputation

Yes, the concept of transaction is also present in the Old Testament.  The words aren't used explicitly, but the transaction should be apparent from the text:

  Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.  Isaiah 53


What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?"

There are several classical arguments for believing in God, including:

The cosmological argument, which says that (logically) everything exists because it is caused by something else or because it has always existed. It says that everything that has been caused by something else must be caused by something else and so on until you get to something that is without cause. A thing without cause must always have existed. The first cause is God.

The teleological argument argues that the universe looks as if it has a design and a purpose. It argues that this is because it has a designer who gave it a purpose. It asks for a reason for the order in the universe, for natural laws and principles, and finds an explanation in God.

The ontological argument argues that God must exist if you can imagine that He exists... I'm not sure why, to be honest.

The moral argument says that naturalistic explanations of morality, love etc. are inadequate to explain the existence of morality, love etc.

Each of these arguments has received considerable attention by philosophers and theologians, with counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments having been debated for centuries. At the very least, however, some version of these arguments may remove intellectual barriers to faith and position you to accept the possibility that God is real.

Of course, even if you accept the veracity of one of these arguments, the God in its conclusion isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Nevertheless, the conclusion of these arguments does appear to be compatible with Christianity. Moreover, some writers suggest that the cumulative effect of the arguments is to validate the Christian world-view.

For most Christians, rational argument is only a part of why we believe. Instead, we choose Jesus on the basis of religious experience or because he fills an emotional or pragmatic need. In my view, nobody can be certain of God's existence (or non-existence), but you can look at the balance of probabilities. As such, we each have to take responsibility to look at the arguments in the light of our experience and then decide for ourselves what to believe.


How does leaving a 'gift at the altar' reconcile with reformed views of the need to 'approach the throne of grace' in everything?

this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of
  reformed theology using this particular verse only

That's a bad idea from a Reformed or any other perspective.  To take one verse and attempt to understand a full theology based on it is simply not possible.  The surest way to misinterpret Scripture is to take verses out of context.

Taken in context, this is not speaking about straightening out a specific sin prior to going to the altar, it's about the principle of going to the alter to "worship" with a heart that's far from God.  It's a perfect complement to Hosea 6, which speaks of Israel turning to God with an unrepentant heart simply to achieve personal gain - the healing of their land.  God rejects this, and in verses 6-10, we see the underlying principle:

  6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
      and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 As at Adam,[b] they have broken the covenant;
      they were unfaithful to me there. 8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,
      stained with footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a victim,
      so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem,
      carrying out their wicked schemes. 10 I have seen a horrible thing in Israel:
      There Ephraim is given to prostitution,
      Israel is defiled.

This has nothing to do with salvation, predestination, or any other Calvinistic doctrine.  It has to do with the truth of the condition of our hearts.  It speaks to the pointlesness of following religious ritual, and the superiority of a heart that is turned over to God.  Such a heart will understand that love, kindness, and forgiveness are necessary, and will not worship in vain.

From Calvin's commentary:

  It amounts to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder,
  (Exodus 20:13,) is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly
  kindness, with our neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us,
  Christ declares, that even the duties of religion are displeasing to
  God, and are rejected by him, if we are at variance with each other.
  When he commands those who have injured any of their brethren, to be
  reconciled to him, before they offer their gift, his meaning is, that,
  so long as a difference with our neighbor is kept up by our fault, we
  have no access to God. But if the worship, which men render to God, is
  polluted and corrupted by their resentments, this enables us to
  conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual agreement among
  ourselves.

It's not a legalistic "do this, get that" type of thing.  There is no "specific sin" to be taken care of first.  It is, as Christ is trying to teach in this passage, a matter of hypocrisy vs. true Christian love, which is a result of faith in God and repentance.


What does the perpetual virginity of Mary add to our salvation?

Ken Graham’s fulsome answer deals almost entirely with the ‘perpetual virginity’ of Mary but I am concerned to look at the claimed role of Mary in salvation because, whether or not Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus Christ, your question deals with a biblical doctrine – salvation – whereas there is no biblical doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is at pains to stress that Mary was a virgin when the miraculous conception took place, but is silent on such intimate matters with regard to Mary thereafter. It also has nothing to say on Mary having any part, or role, whatsoever in salvation. We may misunderstand how salvation is bestowed if we misunderstand Mary’s biblical place in the divine scheme of things. There is no mention of her being in any way involved in salvation in the early Church.

From a Roman Catholic “Encyclopedia of Theology” edited by Karl Rahner, pages 896-7, under the heading ‘Mariology’ it is shown that Mary is contrasted with Eve. As Eve's disobedience brought ruin, the faith and obedience of Mary brought salvation. Mary's claimed role in the history of salvation is compared with that of the Catholic Church. The absolute sinlessness of Mary was taught for the first time by Pelagius and Augustine, then expanded into the freedom from original sin which was then attributed to Mary. Catholic teaching is that Mary plays a vital role in bringing salvation to sinners. This Catholic Encylopedia which I consulted states that Mary:

  “…became, as Pius XII said (Constitution Ad caeli reginam, 11 October
  1954: DS 3913-17), “Queen of Heaven”. This title… indicates the lofty
  position of Mary in the divine economy and in the historical course of
  salvation…

  Mary entered into the process of salvation through her faith… By her
  Fiat to the divine message Mary contributed to salvation, just as Eve
  had done to man’s ruin (Lumen Gentum, art. 56). This does not mean
  that God made his plan of salvation dependent on Mary’s consent but
  that according to the eternal plan of salvation man for his part was
  to assent to his salvation, through divine grace. Humanity’s Yes to
  God and to Christ the saviour is summed up in Mary. In her Fiat of
  faith, she received salvation for all...   Mary was the primary
  recipient of this salvation, which she took to herself in the most
  excellent way, not only for herself in individualistic isolation but
  with a willingness and an openness which were orientated to all men.
  Her personal appropriation of salvation has ecclesiastical
  significance. The salvation of Christ is concretely embodied in the
  sacrament of the Church, as Lumen Gentium affirms (art. 59). Salvation
  is present and accessible in the Church, and Mary is the first and
  most privileged member of the Church…

  Vatican II avoided speaking of her universal mediation of grace. But
  the truth behind such terms is taught with reserve, while the
  mediatorship of Christ is strongly stressed and all Mary s activity is
  seen exclusively in the perspective of Christ. If, nonetheless, the
  mediatorship of Mary is affirmed, this is in order to bring out a
  fundamental thought from the Bible, the solidarity of all men. Men do
  not receive salvation as individuals, or monads in isolation from each
  other, but as social beings. Each one who receives the gift of
  salvation becomes himself a source of salvation. The good of one is
  fertile in good things for the other. This general principle holds
  good for Mary in a special and comprehensive way. Hence Mary’s
  mediatorship is to be understood on the level of the solidarity of all
  mankind which is in need of redemption, to which she herself belongs,
  and not on that of the one and only saviour.

  In the light of the thesis that Mary's glorified existence is that of
  intercession, and that this is essential for her, the much discussed
  question of whether Mary's function is sacramental or petitionary
  seems to be given too much superficial prominence... The function of
  Mary in salvation determines her relation to the Church... Mary is
  mother of the Church under this more individualistic aspect, since she
  is effectively concerned for the salvation of each individual.” (pages
  898-901)

It is seen that arriving at the teaching of Mary’s role in salvation is dependent on many stepping stones being added over time to the doctrine of Mary. There is no mention of her being in any way involved in salvation in the early Church. Only at the beginning of the 3rd century did Hippolytus of Rome give her the title of Deipara (the bringer-forth of God). That was changed later to Theotokos (Mother of God), the Encyclopedia commenting that:

  “It was a term which brought out better than Deipara the fact that
  Mary’s function was not merely physiological but also spiritual and
  personal. It paved the way for the concept of Mary as the spiritual
  mother of all the faithful… As regards the perpetual virginity of Mary
  there was no fully general consensus before the Council of Ephesus.
  [431]” (p 896)

Whatever part Mary’s claimed perpetual virginity plays in any role of salvation, it could not have been significant if it was not settled by Catholic theologians until 431. It follows that if that, and any other stepping-stones along the path of Mary’s elevation to eventually being viewed as a co-Redemptrix in salvation is misplaced, there will be a need to ask more questions.


Why wouldn't a practicing Catholic joke about the Sacraments and what would happen if they did?

There is no Church teaching that specifically regards making jokes about the Sacraments. In fact, the problem is not really in making jokes as such; the problem lies in speaking disrespectfully about the Sacraments.
The key to understanding the Church’s attitude is recalling that the Church considers the Sacraments gestures that confer grace—in other words, they are capable of making those who receive them holy:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life [i.e., grace] is dispensed to us (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1131).

Since they constitute the very action of God, working through the minister, any sign of disrespect toward them is also disrespectful to God. This is especially true of the Eucharist, for in the Eucharistic species, Jesus Christ himself is present really and substantially. (See CCC 1376). Hence, being disrespectful to the Eucharist is being directly disrespectful to God Himself.
The basis for this attitude can be found in the Scriptures. For example, God clearly commands us to respect Him in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Ex. 20:70).
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Deut. 5:11).

More specifically, as regards the Holy Eucharist, St. Paul admonishes the faithful in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

(Note that St. Paul is talking about the “Lord’s supper” here, which the Catholic Church generally sees as a reference to the Eucharist. This view is supported by the fact that St. Paul recalls the words of Jesus at the Last Supper in verses 23-25.)
Clearly, St. Paul is referring to something different from telling jokes about the Eucharist; he means taking the Bread and the Cup (interpreted, for Catholics, as the Eucharist) while behaving in a way that is incompatible with friendship with God (for instance, by refusing to share with the poor, or by getting drunk—see verse 21). However, it illustrates the principle that the Holy Eucharist is to be respected.
In fact, disrespecting the Sacraments could be considered a kind of blasphemy. The Catechism explains,

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. [In the usual Catholic numbering, which follows St. Augustine, that is the Commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain.] It consists in uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. … Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin (No. 2148).

Disrespect for the Sacraments would certainly constitute disrespect for the Church and for sacred things.
As far as sanctions and censures, there is no specific censure for telling (disrespectful) jokes about the Sacraments. In a particularly grave, pubic, and persistent case, the local ordinary* would be justified in imposing a penalty (which could include barring the person from receiving the Sacraments). Such a penalty would derive from Can. 1369 of the Code of Canon Law:

A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

In practice, however, those who engage in disrespecting the Sacraments are generally not interested in receiving them, and so withholding the Eucharist from them or imposing a sanction is usually neither necessary nor productive. Generally, this sort of thing is best dealt with privately.

* In Catholic lingo, the “ordinary” is the person with immediate (and non-delegated) authority over someone. For example, for laypersons, the “ordinary” is their diocesan bishop, the vicar general, or other persons with similar authority. For members of a religious order, religious congregation, or similar institution, it would be their superior. We say it is a “local” ordinary when we are referring to the ordinary of a territory—hence, the diocesan bishop and the vicar general only. A censure of this kind would generally have to come from a local ordinary or a tribunal appointed by him.


IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM and it means jessus the nazarinean king of jews, it was wrote so that everyone could mock Him.


A question about practising Christianity against authority

No. Christians who live under the authority of a government that outlaws Christianity would not be resisting God by refusing to abandon their faith. One might imagine that the right thing to do is to obey such laws, perhaps crossing the border to go to church. This is not the case. Authority exercised against the common good is authority that has broken down completely. There is no authority, and Christians are in no way bound by the unjust laws of a government that has no authority.
The Catechism has an article on this subject, part of which addresses governing authority that forbids freedom of religion. (Other major denominations have similar teachings, justified in effectively the same way). The particular sections:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements: [...]

These elements are the respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group itself, and peace. The first element, respect for the person:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."

This view goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. During times of persecution, Masses were offered up to God in secret places while Christians were fed to lions and set on fire to provide lighting for festive events. Many refused even under torture and threat of death to renounce their beliefs, and were martyred for their faith in God.


Good question.

When I read your question, I immediately thought about James Chapter 1, where we read,

  Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

You'll see the relevance of those verses shortly.

First, however, let's define some key terms. Rebellion, as you've used the term, certainly describes Adam's sin, but biblically Adam's sin was disobedience.

  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19 NASB).

Second, one reason for Adam being depicted as the fall guy (no pun intended) instead of Eve is found in the biblical teaching on headship. Without going into a great deal of detail here, from the beginning, man was the head of the woman, much like Christ is the head of the Church Universal (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18).

In a day of political correctness, the concept of headship seems to many to be primitive--offensive, even. Significantly, the Bible's teaching on headship does not even imply remotely that woman is in any way inferior to man. The Bible teaches clearly they are equals in God's sight. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:24; cf. Galatians 3:28).

The Bible also teaches, however, that from the beginning the man was accountable to God in a way the woman was not. Were both Adam and Eve culpable of disobedience? Yes. Clearly, Eve was no less culpable than Adam. Nevertheless, Adam was held accountable in ways which Eve was not.

What did God say in the wake of the couple's disobedience?

  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9 KJV, my italics).

Clearly, both Adam and Eve were guilty of disobedience. That Eve's disobedience was preceded by a process of deception is almost irrelevant to the more significant issue of her eventual disobedience.

Though not strictly biblical, there is a distinct possibility that Satan approached Eve more than once with the same temptation. Perhaps she weakened through multiple temptations by the adversary of her soul. Frankly, we do not know, nor will we ever know. What we do know, however, is that Adam was right there with her when she finally gave in to the the temptation of her advesary (who was, after all, the personage responsible for sin's entrance into the universe).

  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Genesis 3:6 KJV, my emphasis).

Where the Scriptures are silent we must not make unwarranted assumptions, but perhaps we are justified in surmising that had Adam "manned up," so to speak, and prevented his helpmeet (helpmate, or fit helper) from giving in to the temptation, there would not have been a fall from grace.

Still, Adam bore the brunt of blame in the fiasco. His sin, in a sense, was worse than his wife's, since in disobeying God, he betrayed his God-given headship.

While Eve's punishment, as with Adam's, was also death, she was to be burdened as well with the pain attached to childbirth.

  Unto the woman . . . [God] said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" Genesis 3:16 KJV).

And from Paul's letter to his son in the Lord, we have these words,

  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1 Timothy 2:14 KJV).

Two points in conclusion:

Being tempted is not sin; giving in to the temptation is. Temptation is a process, as James points out. We see (literally or figuratively), we want, we take. Lust entices us, carries us away, sin is birthed, and we are separated from God, some for a time and some forever.
Eve's deception took place prior to the Law being given through Moses. Bearing false witness--lying--was certainly a step in the wrong direction for Eve, but as James has pointed out, giving in to sin is a process. In the case of Eve, her deception itself may have been a long time in coming (as I've already suggested).

Perhaps she gave in to Satan's enticements after being worn down over repeated exposures to the same temptation. We simply do not know for certain. Nevertheless, God did not hold Eve responsible for lying but for her disobedience, and with her disobedience, the weight of responsibility as the head of the woman, Adam became the titular head of all humankind.

Albeit a clear anachronism of interpretation, from a 21st century perspective Adam carried in his body the "death gene." Through his seed each subsequent human being birthed into the world was infected with that gene.

  "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity", the psalmist said, "and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5 KJV)).

That sinful conception takes place in each generation because of Adam's "sin-and-death gene." While sin will always be, in a sense, taught, it is still an inborn capacity within the heart of each human being to disobey God. As has often been observed of children, no parent needs to teach his or her child to say no to mommy or daddy!

The good news, however, is that the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15) would deal sin a death blow through the Son of Man, who because of his sinlessness could bear and take away the sin of the world.

  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:24 KJV; cf. John 1:29 and 36).


It is a common understanding among Christians that Adam and Eve disobeyed God but different groups have different ways of understanding it's role spiritually.

  1 Timothy 2:14 (NIV) And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the
  woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

According to this verse, it suggests that Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent. Here is an explanation from "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible".

  And Adam was not deceived,.... There is no need to say with
  interpreters, that he was not deceived first; and that he was not
  deceived immediately by the serpent, but by Eve; and that he is never
  said in Scripture to be deceived, as Melchizedek is never said to have
  a father or mother. The apostle's positive assertion is to be taken
  without any such limitations or qualifications; Adam never was
  deceived at all; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed;
  nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her,
  and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that
  they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. He
  took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to
  bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he
  did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of
  them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and
  knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby
  death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him: but the woman
  being deceived was in the transgression: and the serpent really
  beguiled her; she owned it herself.

Adam decided to die along with his wife, this makes him the greater sinner.

Answer: The fall of mankind was initiated by the serpent's deception, followed by Eve who believed it, and finally by Adam who sacrificed his own life to share the same fate of his beloved wife.

This could be a symbol of God's love, who was ready to share our punishment for our sins, who gave His one and only Son, who died on the cross in our stead, bearing all our sins and suffered it's consequences even though He was without sin. Symbolically, Christians are the bride of Jesus Christ, who is also called the Last Adam. Adam gave his life for his wife Eve, and in the same manner, Jesus Christ gave his life for his bride, the Church. The only difference is, while Adam died with his wife but could not save her, Christ saved us through His death.

  Ephesians 5:25 (NIV) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved
  the church and gave himself up for her.

  1 Corinthians 15:45(NIV) So it is written: “The first man Adam became
  a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.


Is there a translation of the Bible into Hebrew that is based on the LXX+NT?

These comments pertain only to the Septuagint portion of the question. OP elaborates in comments:

  I was wondering if anyone has attempted to restore the original Hebrew text on which the LXX was based by back-translating the LXX into Hebrew.

The interest, then, is driven by a text-critical question and requests a reconstructed text.* In the modern era, there are two major projects of which I am aware that have attempted this in some measure:

Emauel Tov's Parallel Aligned Database -- most accessibly available via several major Bible software packages. The so-called "column b" contains the reconstructed text of interest to OP. From the author's introduction:

  Column b contains a selection of retroverted readings, presumably
  found in the parent text of the LXX.  At the same time, column b
  contains some remarks on differences between the LXX and MT in matters
  of translation technique.

Much of his technique is explained in an introductory monograph by the author.
Although far from a complete LXX back-translation, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition (formerly known as Oxford Hebrew Bible) deserves mention here for anyone interested in the use of LXX for text criticism of the Hebrew Bible. This aim is a complete eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible. When the editors deem that the "best" reading is found in a Greek text, this will be reconstructed in Hebrew. The project is explained in the prologue.

*By contrast, the Polyglot Bibles mentioned in another answer reproduce and align several received texts. In all cases of which I am aware, the Hebrew in such books is the Masoretic Text, even when it differs substantially from the LXX.


Is the Qur'an compatible with Christianity?

No, it is not compatible. The Qur'an explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, which is one of the absolute bedrock tenets of the Christian faith. Without His divinity and associated sinlessness Christ's sacrifice and resurrection would carry no meaning or effect.

One additional note: I ran across this article today and I thought it would round out this answer well. In it the author explains the doctrine of the Trinity and why it matters so much. The fact that Christ was divine and one part of a triune Godhead is critical to Christianity, and as I said the Qur'an denies it outright. A great summary of the Trinity from the article:

  The doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1)
  There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4)
  The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is
  the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father. All of
  the creedal formulations and theological jargon and philosophical
  apologetics have to do with safeguarding each one of these statements
  and doing so without denying any of the other six.

Without a Trinity there is no Christianity, therein lies the direct conflict with the Qur'an.


Is there one guardian angel for each person?

It is the belief of both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox that, yes we can.

In Orthodoxy, there is even a prayer to your Angel.

  O Holy Angel, keeping guard over my wretched soul and my passionate life, do not forsake me, a sinner, nor depart from me because of my incontinence. Do not give the evil enemy room to overcome me by force of this mortal body. Strengthen my weak and feeble hand, and set me on the way of salvation. Yea, O Holy Angel of God, guardian and protector of my wretched soul and body, forgive me everything by which I have offended you all the days of my life, and even what I have done this past night; protect me during this day, and guard me from every temptation of the enemy, that I may not anger God by any sin. Pray to the Lord for me, that He may confirm me in His fear and prove me a worthy servant of His goodness. Amen. - Orthodox Morning Prayers


What is the basis for the claim that Ezekiel 44 is about Mary the Mother of Jesus?

Even before Augustine, St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Jerome used this verse in support of the dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary. Probably St. Augustine learned from his teacher St. Ambrose of Milan.

Some quite emphatically understand this closed gate through which only the Lord God of Israel passes … as the Virgin Mary, who remains a Virgin before and after childbirth. In fact, she remains always a Virgin, in the moment in which the Angel speaks with her and when the Son of God is born. -St. Jerome (Commentarium in Evangelium Lucae, PL 25, 430.)
Only Christ opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which continued to remain closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate, through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed. -St. Jerome (Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2, 4)
“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” -St. Ambrose (The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , 8:52)
"She is closed because she is a virgin; she is a gate, because Christ has entered through her......This gate faces east, because she has given birth to him who rises, the sun of justice.....Mary is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but did not open it." -St. Ambrose (De Institutione Virginis, 8, 57. PL 16, 334)

But these people may not be the first to say this, because all of them are of same time period and people after them too use this same verse for this purpose and do not attribute it to them. This interpretation probably existed for more than a century before and is put in writing by these men.
The verse says that the door is already shut. And the only reason for it being shut is because the Lord has entered by it; And because of this reason It shall remain shut. Mary is ever virgin. The reason why Mary is virgin is because Jesus was born thru her. And because of that reason she will remain a virgin for ever (i.e., her womb will be shut, no one else will enter or exit it).
//It seems to me that the context of this passage is about the temple that Ezekiel is to have built//
If you look closely, almost every messianic prophecy is a context to something else. Take for example the prophesy The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Is 7:14) In its immediate context this is a sign to king Ahaz of Judah, promising the king that God will destroy his enemies even before that child grows up(Is 7:16). But Matthew holds that this as fulfilled in Jesus (Mat 1:23).
Such difference of context was the main point of contention between Jews and Christians from early on. Even Jesus had to explain this to his disciples (Luke 24:27).


If a husband wants to recommit to Catholicism but his wife does not want to convert, will they be considered to be adulterers?

"Reversion" is straightforward. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. However, the falling-away from the Church is contrary to Canon Law:

209 §1 Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.

This is something which may be confessed and absolved, and that — with the appropriate penance applied by the priest — is sufficient to be reconciled to the Church.
With regard to the marriage, the husband has contracted a marriage with an unbaptised person. The Catechism of the Church recognises that this presents particular difficulties:

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.135 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.136 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.137
1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.
1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."138 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.139 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

As the Catechism shows in its references, the marriage is subject to Canon Law and the Tribunal, as well the civil authorities:

1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

A baptised person should have been confirmed before marriage (Canon 1065); but being presented with a fait accompli makes that impossible.
Canon 1086 covers the case explicitly:

1086 §1 A marriage is invalid when one of the two persons was baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other was not baptised. A

Canon 1125 lays down steps which are necessary for validation of a mixed marriage:

1125 The local ordinary [that is, bishop] can grant [permission] if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Part of satisfying (1) may well be to receive confirmation if that hasn't already happened [Cf Canon 1065].
In order to validate a marriage, it will probably be necessary to make the vows which the local Bishops' Conference have mandated. This can normally be done in a relatively private ceremony with the minimum of fuss.
Without a valid marriage, then yes, the couple will be seen as "living in sin," and this could restrict the Catholic party's access to the sacraments. However, the sin is the conjugal act, so living in continence awaiting the validation of the marriage would be the good thing to do, rather like an engaged couple. The Catechism again:

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

The "sin" certainly isn't adultery.

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.

In this case, the two people are civilly married to each other, so it can't be adultery. I suppose that canonically it's fornication, since the marriage isn't canonically valid. However, as the couple are married to each other, even that is doubtful:

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

This comes down to the adage "If you think something is a sin, it probably is." Note that I wrote will be seen as "living in sin" — that is, to live together without a valid marriage may cause scandal. This is something where local customs become important and the local clergy's advice will be particularly helpful.

135 Canon 1124
136 Canon 1086
137 Canon 1125
138 1 Corinthians 7:14
139 Cf 1 Cor 7:16
A Note that the online version of Canon 1086 has not been updated to remove the phrase and has not by a formal act defected from it, which was removed by the Motu Proprio Omnium et Mentem in October 2009.


According to Evangelicals, will the saved ever experience the magnitude of suffering associated with their sins?

I am an evangelical, but am not entirely sure if my belief is the official stance of the church.

Concerning your first question, I believe that when we see God, we will know the magnitude of our sins. Similar to how Isaiah did:

  "And I[Isaiah] said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"(Isaiah 6:5 ESV).

Thus, yes, when we get to heaven, we will see God, feel the magnitude of our sins, and be disgusted by them. And knowing what sort of persons we are in the eyes of God, thank him all the more for the grace which he bestowed upon us, and the love with which he loved us.

The purpose of this is to bring Glory to the Lord, for on earth, we never know the magnitude of our depravity, but once we see the Holy God, whose countenance is so pure he cannot even look upon sin we can understand the magnitude of the grace with which He saved us.

You mentioned at the end of the first bullet, "especially sins committed against others". I would like to make the argument that a sin committed against God including other sinners is no worse than a sin committed against God when we are alone. For sin is the state of rebellion against God, so although we hurt people, we never actually sin against people.

  Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. (Psalm 51:4)

Concerning your final point, The Lord Jesus Christ has justified us via his death on the cross. Where 'justified' is used in the most legal sense - that is, God treats us as if we had never sinned, as if we were righteous.

  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom 4:5)

I don't know if it's correct to say God 'forgets' our sins. But it is to say his righteous wrath upon our sin was satisfied by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. And through Christ, he has removed our sins from us.

  "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

Sorry if I was a bit long winded. But I hope I answered, or at least provided some insight concerning, your question.


How has the Catholic Church interpreted the tearing of the temple veil?

In order to understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the tearing of the veil, we must have a proper understanding of the Catholic priesthood's relativity to the Temple of the Old Covenant.

The Priesthood

There are three types of priesthood in the Catholic Church: (1) Priesthood of Christ as the High Priest and true Priest, the only mediator between God and men; (2) ministerial (or hierarchical) priesthood comprising bishops and priests and (3) priesthood of all faithful though baptism.

  1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured
  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God
  and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of
  God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the
  unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless,
  unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those
  who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

  1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once
  for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the
  Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made
  present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the
  uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest,
  the others being only his ministers."

  Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

  1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church
  "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of
  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal
  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own
  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through
  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are
  "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."

  1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and
  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,
  "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While
  being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what
  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the
  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a
  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the
  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of
  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a
  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For
  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of
  Holy Orders. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1544 to 1547)

While accepting the first and the third ones, Protestant and other post-Reformation churches have rejected the ministerial priesthood for two reasons:

New Testament does not apply the title priest (Greek iereus) to the apostles, bishops (Greekepiskopos) and elders (Greek presbuteros).
The Eucharist or Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, is only a remembrance of Christ, following his request (Luke 22:19) – it does not have sacrificial nature as believed by Catholics.

  1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

  The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of
  Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy
  sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice,
  pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and
  surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

  The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds
  its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this
  sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred
  Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the
  Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the
  tabernacle are designated by this same name. (Catechism of the
  Catholic Church #1330)

Catholics believe the priesthood of the Old Covenant is the one that prefigures that of the New.  First the Priesthood of Christ is prefigured by that of Melchizedek.

  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a
  priest of God Most High. (Genesis 14:18)

  In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming
  a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have
  become your Father.” And he says in another place, “You are a priest
  forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” During the days of Jesus’ life
  on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and
  tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard
  because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned
  obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the
  source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by
  God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:5-10)

The priesthood of all the elect in the New Covenant is prefigured by all of God's chosen Israelites of the Old Covenant.

  Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations
  you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
  you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are
  the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:5-6)

  As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by
  God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built
  into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual
  sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But you are a
  chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special
  possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out
  of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9)

  To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and
  has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to
  him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6)

In addition, God chose Aaron and his sons to be His priests, and appointed them and the tribe of Levi (to which Aaron belonged) for liturgical service in the Sanctuary.

  “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites,
  along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may
  serve me as priests. Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to
  give him dignity and honor. Tell all the skilled workers to whom I
  have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for
  Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest. (Exodus
  28:1-3)

  The LORD said to Aaron, “You, your sons and your family are to bear
  the responsibility for offenses connected with the sanctuary, and you
  and your sons alone are to bear the responsibility for offenses
  connected with the priesthood. Bring your fellow Levites from your
  ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons
  minister before the tent of the covenant law. They are to be
  responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the tent, but
  they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar.
  Otherwise both they and you will die. They are to join you and be
  responsible for the care of the tent of meeting—all the work at the
  tent—and no one else may come near where you are. (Number 18:1-4)

  These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron: The sons of
  Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died
  before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar
  served as the priests. With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar
  and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into
  divisions for their appointed order of ministering. 4A larger number
  of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among
  Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of
  families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from
  Ithamar’s descendants. They divided them impartially by casting lots,
  for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among
  the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar. (1 Chronicles 24:1-5)

Thus priests and Levites, whenever these two appear in the Bible refer to these two groups specially chosen by God.

  They brought up the ark of the LORD and the tent of meeting and all
  the holy utensils, which were in the tent, and the priests and the
  Levites brought them up. (1 Kings 8:4)

  Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the
  heaps. (2 Chronicles 31:9)

  For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all
  of them were pure. Then they slaughtered the Passover lamb for all the
  exiles, both for their brothers the priests and for themselves. (Ezra
  6:20)

  Likewise we cast lots for the supply of wood among the priests, the
  Levites and the people so that they might bring it to the house of our
  God, according to our fathers' households, at fixed times annually, to
  burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law;
  (Nehemiah 10:34)

  This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and
  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" (John 1:19)

The Sanctuary

The Sanctuary is the place where God was present with Israelites.

  "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.
  (Exodus 25:8)

We read how God instructed Moses to build a tent to function as the Sanctuary in the book of Exodus chapters 25-27.

Later God chose Solomon to build the first Temple in Jerusalem to house the Sanctuary.

  In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out
  of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the
  month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the
  LORD. (1 Kings 6:1)

  "Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a house for the
  sanctuary; be courageous and act." (1 Chronicles 28:10)

The Sanctuary consisted of 2 parts separated by a veil the (outer) Holy Place and the (inner) Holy of Holies.

  “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted
  linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with
  gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and
  standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and
  place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will
  separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. (Exodus 26:31-33)

  A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the
  table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.
  Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which
  had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the
  covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that
  had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were
  the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.
  (Hebrews 9:2-5)

Only priests were allowed to offer sacrifice in the (outer) Holy Place.  One of the priests will be appointed as High Priest and only he can enter the (inner) Holy of Holies and only once every year to offer blood atonement

  "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make
  atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a
  year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD."
  (Exodus 30:10)

  When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered
  regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the
  high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and
  never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the
  people had committed in ignorance. (Hebrews 9:6-7)

Catholics believe that the priesthood of Melchizedek prefigures that of Christ, while the priesthood of Aaron and his sons prefigures that of bishops, institution of seventy elders prefigures that of priests (the English word priest is derived from Greek presbuteros), the Levites prefigures the deacons while priesthood of all Israelites prefigures the common priesthood of all faithful.

  1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion
  with God by sacrifices and prayer, this priesthood nevertheless
  remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its
  sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive
  sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.

  1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured
  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God
  and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of
  God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the
  unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless,
  unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those
  who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
  (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1540, 1544)

Most, if not all, Protestants and “Bible only” Christians will argue that priesthood of Aaron or Levitical priesthood is abolished in New Testament.  Yet Scripture prophesies that the Levitical priesthood shall never lack a man in God’s presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifice forever.

  For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man
  to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever
  fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt
  offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’ ”
  (Jeremiah 33:18)

The Veil Is Torn

Christ established the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25) on the night he was betrayed.  The old covenant refers to the one God made with Moses, and it is to be replaced with the new and better covenant of Christ (Hebrews 8:6), prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33-34 (Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16-17). The Sanctuary of the New Covenant is heavenly and not man-made - it is heaven itself (Hebrews 8:5, 9:11, 24).

In the Old Covenant priests offered sacrifice in the outer Sanctuary. The Veil separated it from the inner Sanctuary into which only the High Priest  could enter (prefigured Christ).  The torn veil as testified in Matthew 27:51 shows that in the New Covenant there is no longer separation between the sacrifice offered by priests and Christ, the High Priest.

All Catholics receive their common priesthood through Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation.

  1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church
  "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of
  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal
  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own
  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through
  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are
  "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."  (Catechism of the
  Catholic Church # 1546)

Christ, being the the only mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), is the only true Priest. Both ministerial and common priesthood participate in this one priesthood of Christ.

  1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and
  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,
  "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While
  being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what
  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the
  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a
  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the
  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of
  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a
  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For
  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of
  Holy Orders.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1546-1547)

The New American Bible, Revised Edition presents an orthodox summary of Matthew’s account of the tearing of the veil:

  Luke puts this
  event immediately before the death of Jesus. There were two veils in
  the Mosaic tabernacle on the model of which the temple was
  constructed, the outer one before the entrance of the Holy Place and
  the inner one before the Holy of Holies (see Ex 26:31–36). Only the
  high priest could pass through the latter and that only on the Day of
  Atonement (see Lv 16:1–18). Probably the torn veil of the gospels is
  the inner one. The meaning of the scene may be that now, because of
  Jesus’ death, all people have access to the presence of God, or that
  the temple, its holiest part standing exposed, is now profaned and
  will soon be destroyed. The earth quaked…appeared to many: peculiar to
  Matthew. The earthquake, the splitting of the rocks, and especially
  the resurrection of the dead saints indicate the coming of the final
  age. In the Old Testament the coming of God is frequently portrayed
  with the imagery of an earthquake (see Ps 68:9; 77:19), and Jesus
  speaks of the earthquakes that will accompany the “labor pains” that
  signify the beginning of the dissolution of the old world (Mt 24:7–8).
  For the expectation of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of
  the new and final age, see Dn 12:1–3. Matthew knows that the end of
  the old age has not yet come (Mt 28:20), but the new age has broken in
  with the death (and resurrection; cf. the earthquake in Mt 28:2) of
  Jesus; see note on Mt 16:28. After his resurrection: this
  qualification seems to be due to Matthew’s wish to assert the primacy
  of Jesus’ resurrection even though he has placed the resurrection of
  the dead saints immediately after Jesus’ death.  (USCCB)


Why does Jesus say "Why have you forsaken me?"

Its a quotation of the first verse of Psalm 22 (Read the whole Psalm), which is a Psalm about a righteous man suffering at the hands of the ungodly, and is traditionally understood within Christianity as being a graphic prophecy of the crucifixion.  Hence Jesus would be quoting it to sort of point that out.

Of particular interest is verse 16 (KJV) "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

Also verse 21, "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."  Unicorns simply means a one-horned animal, maybe an extinct one-horned rhino, not the mythical unicorn. Anyway, its being used figuratively.  Justin Martyr (around 150 AD) in his Dialogue with Trypho, in chapter 91, understood this as symbolizing the cross by the figure of intersecting unicorn horns:

  Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns.