–This “picture” in Scripture is/has been to me like a photograph of my loved ones/One.
“divine testimony of the truth of Stephan’s words” — how beautiful! that never occured to me!

Your answer –so beautiful– causes another question to arise — I hope this one is not “out of bounds”, but it is where my mind has arrived — will we then live with Him in the Holy of Holies? Is that where heaven (is)?

Not everyone is a Torah scholar and so not everyone need look to strangers and foreigners but only those for whom this task has been appointed.

Now regarding Luke, the physician beloved of Paul:

Acts is unique in the New Testament for being transmitted early on as far back as the early 2nd century in two text types: Egyptian (Alexandrian) and Western (Codex Benzae (D) African Lat version, and Harclean Syr “apparatus”). Scholarship favors the Egyptian as the closest to Luke’s own hand due to the occasional omissions that betray evidence of initentional revision in the Western version, which is 1/10 longer than the Egyptian.

Examining the reference to Acts 7:55-56 requires first understanding Stephen’s speech (7: 2-53) the longest discourse in the book of Acts. The sharp polemical climax of Stephen’s argument draws upon a historical schema developed by deuteronomic historians (cf. O. Steck, U Wilckens). It’s traditional and compositional elements indicate mature Pauline thought as evidenced by the fact that Luke, a gentile author, has received both teaching and instruction in Torah. The use of the Moses-prophet typology coupled with Torah citations that use and evoke contextual reference are all practices common among the Pharisees and scribes. Even the mention of Paul performing a brit milah on Luke to bring him into the temple includes the inference that Paul is his mohel and Luke is his olim.

Stephen’s speech may be divided into versus 2-8 (1) Adonai’s faithfulness to Avraham; versus 9-16 (2) Adonai’s faithfulness with Yoseph; versus 17-43 (3) Adonai’s faithfulness with Moshe; versus 44-50 (4) Adonai’s dwelling among the unfaithful Israelites – who due to the golden calf incident at Mt. Sinai were stripped of the priesthood which was given to the Levites after they slew the 6000 gold calf worshippers. From that point on the Tent of the Tabernacle was placed at the center of the camp surrounded by the Levites to keep secularized Israel from being destroyed by Adonai’s presence. Finally versus 50-53 (5) the conclusion: Israel’s perennial resistance to Adonai and His messengers. The historical survey from Avraham’s call to Yoseph and Moshe describe the wickedness of Israel, which climax’s in the building the temple. The undertone in the argument is the idolatrous nature of Israel’s religious leadership which has substituted enuma in the faithfulness of Adonai for a graven image of Torah: The legalistic elements of covenant statehood have strangled the life of Torah creating a dead observance whose purpose is to enrich those who practice it by devouring the inheritance of the people of Israel. As it is written, “they eat my people like bread, never giving thanks” (cf. Romans 1: 19-28. ibid. Psalms 14:4, 50). The theme of inheritance is integral to understanding Paul-Luke. (1) In Halacha there are two forms of Kedushat Yisrael – a general sanctity that is created through our actions and one that is imputed by Adonai which pertains to the offices of prophet, priest, and king for which our acts of obedience testify as witness to Adonai who establishes the office. Here Stephen is declaring a greater Kadash, namely the Avrahamic covenant of blessing which is as superior to Kedushat Yisrael as Adonai Himself is superior to all creation. The promised blessing is the life and sonship (covenant presence) of Adonai dwelling with in His people. The intended reference is Adonai separating from secularized Israel those of His own (cf. Gen 3: 15) inferring that the leaders of Israel have become children of Nahash following the empty form of the covenant but not its likeness to Adonai (i.e. broken vessels). Stephen is condemning Israel’s leadership by inferring that they practice observance out of scrupulosity and selfish interest rather than enuma; hence his condemnation and withering peroration in versus’ 51-53. The martyrdom of Stephen is a parallelism with Jesus’ Sanhedrin trial (versus 55, 56, 58b) and dying words (versus 59-60) and the supernumerary presence of Saul-Paul. The vision of gazing into the heavens and seeing the Glory of Adonai is divine testimony of the truth of Stephan’s words. Stephan’s death is both fearless and holy despite the painful and slow nature of stoning. In this context the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the Avrahamic blessing which Christians enjoy both on earth and in heaven. Just as Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven as a mustard seed that grows into a tree, so the Holy Spirit perfects and fills our being as the presence of Adonai’s own worship of Himself until we reach perfection where the temple curtain is torn with in our beings (our separation from Adonai) and we behold the living presence of Adonai with in ourselves both here and in the regeneration. Therefore we see Adonai face to face in heaven with our spiritual senses even as we experience His indwelling with in our beings – the double blessing of Avraham.

Here’s question 2:
Stephen looked into heaven and saw (Acts 7: 55-56) the Glory of God and Jesus standing . . .

When we get to heaven will we see the Holy Spirit?
Also, please tell me how this scene is described in the original. thank you.

וַיָּמוּתוּ גַם־שְׁנֵיהֶם מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הָאִשָּׁה מִשְּׁנֵי יְלָדֶיהָ וּמֵאִישָׁהּ

מַחלוֹן Machlown (prime; a name whose root is sick) כִּליוֹן Kilyown (prime; a name) מָמוֹת muwth (prime; a primitive root ; to die literally or figuratively; causatively to kill: stem – qual/ mood imperfect) גַּם gam (complement; by contraction from an used root meaning to gather; properly assemblage; when used only adverbially also, even, yea, though; often repeated as correlation both … and) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (prime; the first form is the dual of Strong’s H8145; the second form is feminine; two; also as ordinal twofold) אִשָּׁה ‘ishshah (prime; the first form is the feminine of Strong’s H0376 or H0582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman in the same sense as H0582) שָׁאַר sha’ar (prime; a primitive root; properly to swell up, that is, be redundant; causatively make redundant; stem – Niphal / mood – imperfect) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (standard) יֶלֶד yeled (prime; from Strong’s H3205; something born; that is a lad or offspring) מִן min (complement; for Strong’s H4482; properly a part of; hence from or out of in many senses used prepositionally) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (complement) אִישׁ ‘iysh (contracted for Strong’s H0582 or an unused root meaning to be extent; man – when used as an adjunct to a more definite

To me your description looks almost like an implied dative between muwth and sha’ar. Any chance you could eloborate?