Your approach to the plain teaching of the Scripture is very sad indeed.I am not so sure.
Philip was happy with -- as far as man may know -- the eunuch's status before the face of God simply having become a believer.
But no, an ignorant newcomer must teach him how to baptise, as if that which he had received without any of his own works, wasn't good enough.
I think the eunuch was an ungrateful and arrogant person taking advantage, who insisted on more and better than all Christians were contented with.
For me it is just the same as John Wesley who wasn't satisfied with the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit having given him faith, but who as it were had to coerce the Holy Spirit to bestow on him better gifts than 'just' faith and forgiveness.
Baptism "IN THE NAME" is not good enough; it leaves man's 'part' out. Which is where the eunuch took over the role of master of his own destiny.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
--Where was John the Baptist baptizing the multitudes that came to him?
Why?
He answers that question himself right here:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:...
--With what element did he use to baptize?
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
--Was Jesus also baptized by John?
--Was water used?
Should we not follow the example of Jesus?