• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Doctrine of God Requires the Inclusion of Acts 8:37

JD731

Well-Known Member
People who tell us that Acts 8:37 does not belong in the scriptures is pulling our legs. How do I know that is a true statement? I say that because of the context of baptism in this verse. That is the key to our understanding.

Of all the things that happened during the 8 or so years that passed after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and before this incident God chose to include it in the history of his unfolding drama of redemption. One must ask the question of the text and the subject and the reality of the event. Why?

I say the answer to this question is not in the text book of Professor Natush but in the scriptures of God himself. l did say clearly that the New Testament is the testimony of God. He said that in 1 Cor 2: 1. This is not the first mention of baptism in Scripture so we must begin by comparing baptism scriptures to see if the Spirit will enlighten our eyes through our efforts and desire to know.

Paying attention to the fact that baptism is both an OT and a NT doctrine and noting that baptism in the OT was not a command of God but an action in response to earthly events. If I remember right, the event of the flood that destroyed all but eight people on the earth was called a baptism. If I am wrong about this I will accept correction but it will do no damage to my argument.

One should read Exodus chapter 4 to see and understand that Israel is often times in her prophetic scriptures considered collectively as the son of God, his first born son, meaning that Israel is born like all other men, of the flesh. One cannot understand many OT prophetic utterances from God in his poetical books, especially the Psalms and Proverbs unless this light is turned on in his mind. In this character we can see the struggles of a man without the Spirit of God as his strength to please God. I can not see any possible way to understand the Pauline argument of Romans 7 thru Rom 11:12 without understanding the manner of God in his teaching. The son of God after the flesh has a national identity and that is our focus of baptism in the NT as it relates to this national Israel because her born again experience is a collective new birth or it is no birth at all.

This is the reason that one must understand and reason that God is calling Israel to a new birth in the Acts. It is a collective call. There is a prophecy within the call for any Israelite that will not be saved. That prophecy is that those who would not believe should be killed. Has anyone ever read about the atrocities of the Roman on the Jews in 70 AD? God cannot accomplish his purpose for Israel if there is just one who will not be saved. Jesus Christ has just died for the sins of this nation and by extension all the families of the earth. This would fulfill the Abrahamic covenant promise to bless all families of the world through this family. The second birth is made possible because God has made away for Israel to be born again and to have the perfect righteousness that he requires. For the first 7 years of this age the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached to no one but Jerusalem and Judah. After that it went to Samaria and then to the gentiles. This is congruent with the four parts of the field and the growth results recorded in Mt 13.

There must be a time on earth when this collective son is born again. There will be but it is not now.

When God led Israel out of Egypt it was a birth of a nation. Every one including proselytes were led out. There was not one left . It was the beginning of months. Then God baptized this nation in the Red Sea This baptism was in connection to Jehovah God. I did not say that, God did.

1 Cor 10: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Israel did not know Jehovah as Father in the OT but Jesus came into the world through Mary and as one of us and began to teach and reveal the Father. When he began his ministry he began to call upon them to repent and to receive Jesus as the promised Messiah and the son of God. This is of utmost importance that they understood who he was because he was the means of the new birth that would clear them of all sins. He is the only way.

This baptism was in connection to the son.

When God then sent the Spirit of Christ from heaven they could now receive the new birth and they were once again called upon to be baptized with this third national baptism in connection wit the third member af the trinity, the Spirt, God is a trinity and believers must understand that, or at least believe it. All thee members of the trinity were eventually rejected by this son.

This is no plan B. Israel's salvation was thewill of God Prophecy says God will reach his end of saving his son in spite of their rebellion these many yearThis call of the African, not a member of this family represents a transition in the book of Acts and history. Up to now with the call of the Jews and the Samaritans to receive the Spirit by being baptized in water symbolizing cleansing from sins, the same is not so in Acts 8 with the Eunuch.

Here is what God said through Peter when asked after his preaching.

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Here is the answer to the Eunuch when he asked the question:

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Baptism was a command to Israel but not to the Eunuch. He was an african and not a part of the nation of Israel. From this point on God would not deal with Israel as a nation but as individuals and we see in chapter 9 the introduction and conversion of the apostle to the nations, Saul, called Paul. God will fulfill his purpose for this age after the cross with gentiles and individual believing Jews which is building his church, fashioning his bride.

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (people = Israel in context).
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Ye must be born again.
 
Last edited:

JD731

Well-Known Member
This is the reason that one must understand and reason that God is calling Israel to a new birth in the Acts. It is a collective call. There is a prophecy within the call for any Israelite that will not be saved. That prophecy is that those who would not believe should be killed. Has anyone ever read about the atrocities of the Roman on the Jews in 70 AD? God cannot accomplish his purpose for Israel if there is just one who will not be saved. Jesus Christ has just died for the sins of this nation and by extension all the families of the earth. This would fulfill the Abrahamic covenant promise to bless all families of the world through this family. The second birth is made possible because God has made away for Israel to be born again and to have the perfect righteousness that he requires. For the first 7 years of this age the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached to no one but Jerusalem and Judah. After that it went to Samaria and then to the gentiles. This is congruent with the four parts of the field and the growth results recorded in Mt 13.
So there are three national water baptisms of Israel recorded in the scriptures. One at the Red Sea, one when Jesus was revealed to Israel claiming to be the long awaited Messiah of Israel and the son of God. One when the Holy Spirit was poured out like rain from heaven. These three baptisms pictures for us the manner in which God brings one to salvation and at the same time his loving and kind character, his long suffering and his patience and his wisdom is on display all through Israel's history. Israel pictured the natural man in the OT. They had the law of God but in that condition they were wretched and rebellious and had no power to keep his righteous law.

There is a literal and physical application to these Bible truths and there is a spiritual application. We learn the character of God and we learn his ways through his interaction with and through Israel. This is one of the ways of God

God established this nation upon his oath, his promise to Abram that he would make his family a great nation, the chief nation of the earth and if they failed his seed would one day be the blessing for them and by extension all the families of the world. For the next two thousand years human history and the nature and ways of God would be viewed through this family and the world would learn of him.

He 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

We learn of the marvelous love and long suffering of God with Israel his son. How he disciplines them and yet for all that they are rebellious at heart. We could never learn these things from any other nation and people because they were not sons. God was not their Father. They were enemies and adversaries of God. God did not deal with them as sons and yet while all, Israel and the nations were yet enemies of God, Christ died for us all. This news should make us all shout for joy.

I will include a prophecy of Jesus Christ that he gave in the temple in Jerusalem during what is called Passion Week,
(Matt 21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,)

Mt 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, (This would be God the Father) which planted a vineyard, (This would be Judah) and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country (heaven):
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, (Harvest time) he sent his servants (prophets) to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants (the prophets), and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

Jesus comes at harvest time, metaphoricly speaking, Remember Ga 4;4 that God said when the fulness of the time was come God sent his son. In these parables leading up to this week during the crucifixion of Jesus all the parables he spoke was at the end of the day. Supper time. He expected to reap from all his labor and this is his set time for a harvest.
John 5:17
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen (rulers) saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

How does one who is slain return? He must be resurrected, No? One should consider the dispersion in 70 AD here.
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? This head of the corner is mentioned in Eph 2:20 and following.

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

This is a somber promise and warning.

Now my question for the reader is: do you think God really did desire fruit at Jesus coming that he obviously did not get and do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that the kingdom was taken from them because of their response and not his own? Would history have been written differently from that time going forward if he had been accepted by the husbandmen? Or do you think it is all a sham and that God had predestined and preordained their negative response to him and they could not have done any thing differently? Is God in the box that some people put him in?

Paul, in the Roman prison preached the last sermon to the rulers of Israel in Acts 28 and said that was it for that generation and henceforth (that means going forward) he would go to the gentiles. I turn the page and what did I see? The letter to the Romans, the capitol city of the entire planet.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

These parables during this Passover season instructs us into the character of this age and beyond while Israel is in denial and until lateely has been buried in the nations of the world. Where am I wrong.
 

Lewis HB

New Member
Thanks for your note JD. My pastors both of them have talked about wether our doctrine should begin mid-Acts.
perhaps we could delinate ($10 word :) ) between doctrine and useful teaching.
As for Acts 28, there is lots of fuss as to what he meant by "gifts of the Holy Ghost." Thing is, the gifts as Tounges, Prophecy, healing ceased after the first century because they were no longer needed because the Bible was complete. Btw, in acts 26 Paul made it very clear that tounges is speaking in human languages so that everyone present will hear what Paul taught in their native language. saying """6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."""

As for Jesus teachings in the Gospels, He taught to The Jews under the dispensation of the Law. While we can find useful historical knowledge guidence and inspirition in the Gospels, they do not applyto us as doctrine because they were not written to us, the Church.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your note JD. My pastors both of them have talked about wether our doctrine should begin mid-Acts.
perhaps we could delinate ($10 word :) ) between doctrine and useful teaching.
As for Acts 28, there is lots of fuss as to what he meant by "gifts of the Holy Ghost." Thing is, the gifts as Tounges, Prophecy, healing ceased after the first century because they were no longer needed because the Bible was complete. Btw, in acts 26 Paul made it very clear that tounges is speaking in human languages so that everyone present will hear what Paul taught in their native language. saying """6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."""

As for Jesus teachings in the Gospels, He taught to The Jews under the dispensation of the Law. While we can find useful historical knowledge guidence and inspirition in the Gospels, they do not applyto us as doctrine because they were not written to us, the Church.
The church began with the firstborn from the dead.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

How simple are those words yet few believe them. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who will agree with this statement that Jesus Christ was born spiritually when he was bodily resurrected. That is when we are born again, when the Spirit of Christ enters into our bodies and gives us life from above and giving us the image of Jesus Christ who is the image of God. Jesus Christ is God but he is also fully man.

It was God's intention to build his church beginning with Israel or at least from those 17 nations who were in Israel when God began to form his bride on the day of Pentecost. If it wasn't then his parables before the cross does not make sense. The reason that God sent his servants out to the hedges and highways is because those bidden would not come. The wedding was ready. That means there is nothing left to do. all one has to do is come in proper wedding attire because the guests will now become the bride.

Consider this parable.

Mt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them (to find out who the them are read the previous verses) again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they (those bidden) would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

God had called 12 apostles in Mt 10 and 70 "others" in Luke 10.

5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

That is what the Romans did to Jerusalem in 70 AD

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

The church took on a gentile character from this time because the nation was dissolved into the nations having lost their national identity and was forced off their land and from here the church realized it's growth by one conversion at a time until it is complete.
.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

One should read in Mt 13 the parable of the tares and wheat growing in the same field til harvest time of this crop.. Jesus himself interpreted this parable. You will find that the angels gathered the tares of the field (world) into bundles (denominations, sects, cults, false religions of every sort), and interestingly he said TO BE BURNED after the wheat is gathered safely into his barn. Obviously the tares will be burned in the tribulation fire after the rapture of true Christians.
14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

I am getting far afield from the subject of baptism and I will try to get back because there are interesting truths one can discover by the study of it.

The question now is can't someone read what Jesus said would happen during the week before he was put to death by the Jews and read the history in the Acts as well as secular history and see that it is exactly as he said it would be?
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Let's see, the CT and MT agree, the verse is a non-inspired late addition. Can the same doctrine be found in other verses?

If so, there is no need for inclusion. If the doctrine is novel, then it should not be taught, as its origin is under a well documented cloud.

If a person believes with everything he or she has, but God does not credit that faith as righteousness, the person is not saved. Recall Matthew 13 and soils #2 and #3? People who leave out God's action of crediting or not the individual's faith, leave out the gospel.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Let's see, the CT and MT agree, the verse is a non-inspired late addition. Can the same doctrine be found in other verses?

If so, there is no need for inclusion. If the doctrine is novel, then it should not be taught, as its origin is under a well documented cloud.

If a person believes with everything he or she has, but God does not credit that faith as righteousness, the person is not saved. Recall Matthew 13 and soils #2 and #3? People who leave out God's action of crediting or not the individual's faith, leave out the gospel.

Leave the verse out and tell us what is the reason for God having Philip leave Samaria and go to Gaza to meet the Eunuch seeing a theme so far has been baptism.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Philip went to Samaria and baptized everyone who believed his preaching. Luke, the author of Acts wrote the message he preached to the Samaritans and they believed what he said and were baptized. What did they believe?

Follow the logic here.

Our introduction to Philip.

4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed [with them]: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
8 And there was great joy in that city.

So what did he preach about Christ?

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Here is the logic:

Simon believed the same as every one else and was baptized but none of these Samaritans were saved according to the NT definition of salvation. I am not the one saying it, the text does.

Here.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

There is no plainer definition of salvation than verse 15 above. Salvation occurs when the Holy Ghost indwells a man. They were all baptized yet none of them were saved.

The reason they had not received the Holy Ghost is because the Holy Ghost was not yet given just by believing and he was not given yet to gentiles even though what was preached to them must be believed before they do receive the Holy Ghost. Some of these Samaritans were no doubt gentiles. The apostles had to be present and to lay their hands on those who would receive the Holy Ghost. They had that discernment and for the nuts and bolts of this transition I encourage you to read John 20 in a KJV and to believe what you read.

What the Ethiopian said he believed is part of what men must believe, that Jesus is the son of God, but that is not all. They must believe that he died as our substitute, paying for our sins, that he was buried and that he rose again and that his blood he shed washes away our sins. There is no record that an apostle laid hands on him as they did in Samaria. That is understandable because he was a gentile and the door of faith had not yet been opened to us.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

You saw this in action in Acts 8 with the exchange between Peter and Simon the sorcerer.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
People who tell us that Acts 8:37 does not belong in the scriptures is pulling our legs. How do I know that is a true statement? I say that because of the context of baptism in this verse. That is the key to our understanding.
I sheepishly must admit that I have not read the whole long post or those following it.

The reason most modern Bible versions do not contain the passage is quite simple:
The passage is just not in the majority of manuscripts.

There is nothing doctrinally incorrect with the added quotation:
the additional words answer the question of what the eunuch did, he confessed to believe with his whole heart.

This tidbit of doctrinal truth is not singular; it a prominent truth found throughout Scripture (cf. Romans 10:9-10).

Rob
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Leave the verse out and tell us what is the reason for God having Philip leave Samaria and go to Gaza to meet the Eunuch seeing a theme so far has been baptism.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Philip went to Samaria and baptized everyone who believed his preaching. Luke, the author of Acts wrote the message he preached to the Samaritans and they believed what he said and were baptized. What did they believe?

Follow the logic here.

Our introduction to Philip.

4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed [with them]: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
8 And there was great joy in that city.

So what did he preach about Christ?

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Here is the logic:

Simon believed the same as every one else and was baptized but none of these Samaritans were saved according to the NT definition of salvation. I am not the one saying it, the text does.

Here.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

There is no plainer definition of salvation than verse 15 above. Salvation occurs when the Holy Ghost indwells a man. They were all baptized yet none of them were saved.

The reason they had not received the Holy Ghost is because the Holy Ghost was not yet given just by believing and he was not given yet to gentiles even though what was preached to them must be believed before they do receive the Holy Ghost. Some of these Samaritans were no doubt gentiles. The apostles had to be present and to lay their hands on those who would receive the Holy Ghost. They had that discernment and for the nuts and bolts of this transition I encourage you to read John 20 in a KJV and to believe what you read.

What the Ethiopian said he believed is part of what men must believe, that Jesus is the son of God, but that is not all. They must believe that he died as our substitute, paying for our sins, that he was buried and that he rose again and that his blood he shed washes away our sins. There is no record that an apostle laid hands on him as they did in Samaria. That is understandable because he was a gentile and the door of faith had not yet been opened to us.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

You saw this in action in Acts 8 with the exchange between Peter and Simon the sorcerer.
You posted a long post, but I could not see the point.

1) Yes, it is possible to blend verse 36 and 38 more clearly using an improved translation of the inspired words.

2) No one is saying the Eunuch was not water baptized by Philip.

3) I did not see where you addressed why our earliest and best manuscripts do not include the verse.

4) I did not indicate any doubt about the Eunuch being saved.

5) I did not question what Philip preached.

You seem to be proving "A" so you can claim "B" has been proved.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
I sheepishly must admit that I have not read the whole long post or those following it.

The reason most modern Bible versions do not contain the passage is quite simple:
The passage is just not in the majority of manuscripts.

There is nothing doctrinally incorrect with the added quotation:
the additional words answer the question of what the eunuch did, he confessed to believe with his whole heart.

This tidbit of doctrinal truth is not singular; it a prominent truth found throughout Scripture (cf. Romans 10:9-10).

Rob
Well Deacon, that settles it. The verse is not in most Bibles. But if it is in some Bibles it takes away nothing important nor adds anything important to the narrative, according to you. I have to say that is a rather cavalier attitude to take about the inspired word of God.

Just consider for a minute that this incident took place sometimes in about 38 AD. This is about 8 years after our Lord Jesus was raised from the dead and the gospel began to be preached. Thousands and thousands of Jews were no doubt saved during those years and many apostolic miracles were performed and lives were changed but they were not included in God's written testimony. But for some reason God wanted this incident with Philip and the Ethiopian to make headlines in the context of baptism and what he said he personally believed. Either with the verse or without some just give a nonchalant shrug to the passage and declare nothing to see here lets just move on. This is what thousands of Bible translations have done to the church. God have mercy! The very fact that it is one of the very few things set before us during these years makes it extremely important to seek out what we should learn from it. The carnal mind will never know.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
You posted a long post, but I could not see the point.

1) Yes, it is possible to blend verse 36 and 38 more clearly using an improved translation of the inspired words.

2) No one is saying the Eunuch was not water baptized by Philip.

3) I did not see where you addressed why our earliest and best manuscripts do not include the verse.

4) I did not indicate any doubt about the Eunuch being saved.

5) I did not question what Philip preached.

You seem to be proving "A" so you can claim "B" has been proved.
Thanks for the input. I will consider it.
 
Top