Pants-of-dog wrote:So, it is not Jews who persecuted Stephen. Though this takes place in Jerusalem, it is not even the local synagogues that get mad at him to begin with. Instead, this whole thing is started by 4 diaspora synagogues.
And at the time, there were between 450 and 500 synagogues in Jerusalem at the time. So, this is a vanishingly slim minority.
They are synagogues attended by Jews, yes, but, obviously,
not all Jews. Some segment of Jews did this.
Since the Sanhedrin was involved and such a commotion began, and we have other evidence indicating that a broad range of Jews disliked Christians, it would be safe to say that the cross-section of Jews (perhaps of simply conservative Jews, Sadducees & Pharisees) involved in this was significant.
So, straight people should have the right to not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Right?
In what way?
All humans have a right to express themselves, practice their religion, own private property, self-defense, and perhaps some other things should be thrown in there, but I try to keep it minimal to what I believe human beings merit as positive rights.
In theory, yes, but in practice, no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) actually cares or does anything about it.
And when Christians agitate to have their religious policies made law, they do not oppose fellatio and cunnilingus, but instead oppose gay marriage.
In the US, I believe that there are actually laws on the books in places that have indicated that these are indecent and against the law, but are unenforceable and often function only as stand along charges in sexual crimes. But I do not know the details.
Regardless, I think you are wrong. Many Christians do not break these rules.
Ruth is not the daughter of Boaz, which is good since they are obligated by law to wed each other.
Thank you for that clarification! I was going quickly.
That was the law back then: when a young man died and left a widow, a close male relative of the dead guy had to marry and impregnate the widow to keep the family name going on. The story of Onan also deals with this law.
In this case, neither Boaz nor Ruth can choose not to have sex with each other. Well, actually, Boaz is not the closest male relative so he has to go and ask that guy if Boaz can take the other guy’s place and marry Ruth.
This is actually a story about how Ruth is a good woman because she shows a total lack of spine and embodies complete sexual submission.
The Bible says that men are also not allowed to deprive their wives of gratification in their marriage, but this is New Testament. I am not sure how this was ever handled in traditional Jewish society.
I think you also do not understand what life was like back then, and the importance of the conventions that were in place. These sorts of laws functioned as a social safety net -- so a widowed woman could be taken care of and not be abandoned, and also so that the family could grow and not be wiped out or burdened.
If you were more interested in anthropology/sociology, or in being fair to the religious, you would be connecting these dots, I'm sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Theology
What am I looking for? What is relevant here?
This is all a moot point since all the evidence we have is that Acts was written in Greek and there is no evidence that it was originally written in another language.
Our oldest copy of Hebrews is also in Greek, but the consensus is that it was likely originally composed in Hebrew.
It would make sense that the original composition of Acts was in Aramaic or Hebrew, or that there was a predecessor to it, or an oral history held dearly, which detailed things like the martyrdom of St. Stephen.
Orthodox Christianity was initially confined to those areas where the first few Christians preached and spread their message.
... Which was a vast area that propagated outwards very quickly, and was the cradle of true Christianity.
It was not "confined" in the way that heresies were confined.