an Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8,30-31.What is the Protestant view?

[The_Truthinator]

Might you note please at least three things in which magisterium in your view proved error?

I disagree severely with the Catholic conception of the Eucharist. However, I in no way can “disprove” transubstantiation to you while you are insistent upon believing in it. (I didn’t mean to sound harsh there; if I did, I’m sorry; I don’t know exactly how I come across on the computer.) But I can provide for you the context. Here is a good article on it:

godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.php

I dislike doctrines very much so like Miriam’s assumption (which itself is quite a bold assumption), the inclusion of the Apocrypha, papal infallibility, the sacraments save Baptism and Communion, and much more. Will you please forgive me for not elaborating …? I am very tired today. I wish for nothing more than to rest, and a friend has just e-mailed me with a home crisis. Please pray.

God bless you, as well, friend!

 

[Montalban]

I disagree severely with the Catholic conception of the Eucharist.

I don’t follow their doctrine. But it is the real body

see post #25

 

[chrpenka]

Dear The_Truthinator,

I dislike doctrines very much so like Miriam’s assumption (which itself is quite a bold assumption), the inclusion of the Apocrypha, papal infallibility, the sacraments save Baptism and Communion, and much more.

If I dislike lessons of chemistry, for example, I am not yet entitled to say that for instance the formula of gold (Au, Aurum in latin) is decsribed erroneously. Additonally, I can still dislike lessons of chemistry, but when I’m sure that there was something formulated wrongly, erroneously, I am always oblighted to prove it.
The answer to your dislike of listed “problems” above it is another story though. And I don’t like to sound rude, in no way.

***Mary’s Assumption ***-
***papal infallibility ***-
I provided couple of web readings to think about it. However, in my opinion I think it is more problem with an authority than with the Assumption itself. -my humble opinion.
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Apocrypha - We don’t have included Apocrypha in Bible. I suppose you are talking about Apocrypha of Old Testament.
In the The New Jerome Biblical Commentary I can read:
"Old Testament (OT) Catholic Protocanonical books = Canonical OT Protestant books
OT Catholic Deuterocanonical books = Apocrypha Protestant books
Catholic Apocrypha = Pseudepigrapha Protestant
page no. 1036
Apocrypha (by Protestants titled Pseudepigrapha) are not in Bible.
If you mean by Apocrypha Deuterocanonical books and which inclusion “you dislike” in Catholic Bible, it is good to be aware of all history of list of inspired books by God.
From The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, for example, but it is not only one source, of course!

***the sacraments save Baptism and Communion ***- Sorry, I don’t understand what “you dislike” on it.

Will you please forgive me for not elaborating …? I am very tired today. I wish for nothing more than to rest, and a friend has just e-mailed me with a home crisis. Please pray.

God bless you, as well, friend!

No problem. I still pray for you and hope you had a good rest and your firend’s situation is getting better. !

God bless you.

 

[The_Truthinator]

If I dislike lessons of chemistry, for example, I am not yet entitled to say that for instance the formula of gold (Au, Aurum in latin) is decsribed erroneously.

I think you are reading too much into my choice of words. I simply find no biblical support for certain doctrines, and due to personal convictions am unable to agree with them. That is what I meant by “dislike.”

provided couple of web readings to think about it. However, in my opinion I think it is more problem with an authority than with the Assumption itself. -my humble opinion

Sadly, no. It is not a matter of the authority of the Catholic Church. I would like very much to believe in the Assumption (and numerous other Catholic doctrines; I like the faith very much and once contemplated conversion, but certain convictions stopped me), but I simply don’t find the evidence given to me to be very convincing. I will look into these later. (Actually, the Assumption and the Coronation of Miriam were the two things that stopped me from praying the Rosary prayer.)

the sacraments save Baptism and Communion - Sorry, I don’t understand what “you dislike” on it.

I find no biblical support for the sacraments past Baptism and Communion.

No problem. I still pray for you and hope you had a good rest and your firend’s situation is getting better. !

I didn’t get the sleep I was hoping for after all, but that’s alright. No, my friend is having a major life crisis right now and can’t even come to church with me tonight because of everything … But pray. Thank you.

 

[chrpenka]

The_Truthinator,

I wrote you more in a private message.

 

[rbarcia]

Hi,

last week there was a reading from Acts 8.26-40 in Holy Mass.

Philip is sent by Holy Spirit to an Etiopian eunuh who was reading a book of the prophet Izaiah and asked him whether he understood what he was reading. The Etiopian answered how he could know if nobody is telling him what the book says.

In English there are variations in the translation of the verbs: understand or know,
guide or show,
but in Greek there is for meaning “understand or know” a verb “ginosko”, and for meaning “guide or show” a verb “hodegeo”
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=8&verse=30&strongs=1097&page=
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=8&verse=31&strongs=3594&page=

I heard my friend(who is from a Presbyterian church) telling a child that if he would read a Bible he can get know about God’s love. That means by reading himself.

However, is not this Word of God, that is about the story of Philip and Etiopian, telling us, that there is a crucial importance of being told what does it mean by an authority otherwise someone can read but not understand? As the boy of my friend might not?

What is your view, my friends Protestants?
What do you think?
Thank you for your answer.

Thanks for posting this, this is a great Bible Passage in Acts.

**

1 Corinthians 1:18

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

**

The eunuch had not received the Gospel, so he did not have the Holy Spirit yet. He could not understand the Word of God without the Holy Spirit.

So Philip preached the gospel to him.

**

Acts 8

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

**

Once the Enoch believed in Jesus, His eyes were opened. Then Philip left. There is nothing wrong with someone evangelizing the gospel.

I also find it amazing that He was baptized immediately, based on His belief in the Son of God.

This makes me wonder where the RCC got the practice of baptizing adults today, requiring them to be Catechumens, which requires them to go through certain acts before being baptized.

 

[rbarcia]

Actually, it wasn’t just a good opportunity to share the Gospel. If you read the preceding verses you’ll see that he was sent by God to guide the unuch who was a very learned man as shown in the following verses:

26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert.
27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

This eunuch was already a believer but, as with the rest of us, he couldn’t completely understand scripture without one of God’s chosen of the Magisterium to teach him.

Nothing here says he is a believer in Christ, which is required for salvation. You cannot be a Christian without knowing Christ.

**

34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

**

 

[chrpenka]

Dear rbarcia,
thank you for your posts.

…
Acts 8

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Be please aware, that verse 37 is added later to the text

An old Western variant (Irenaeus) adds a baptismal dialogue here from current practice. From: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary

By chance I found a thread on this forum which was this issue already debating.
See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=123206&highlight=Acts+8.30-38

Once the Enoch believed in Jesus, His eyes were opened. Then Philip left. There is nothing wrong with someone evangelizing the gospel.

I also find it amazing that He was baptized immediately, based on His belief in the Son of God.

This makes me wonder where the RCC got the practice of baptizing adults today, requiring them to be Catechumens, which requires them to go through certain acts before being baptized.

Etiopian eunuch was surely important and not only “ordinary person” for the history of spreading Gospel.
Dt 23.2 says it was impossible for eunuchs to be part of Israel.
Iz 56.3-5 promises for eunuchs to be a part too of God’s house (church)

Etiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is a “finance secretary” of Etiopian Queen. This kingdom is seen in present Sudan. This land was held in the time of Church beginning as one of the End of the World.

So, his baptism surely means spreading Good News to the End of the World and recieving eunuchs to the Church.

We can find Catechumenate in 2nd and 3rd century, in writing of Hippolyt, st. Cyril of Jeruzalem, sv. Ambrose.
About catechumenate you can see too: newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm

However, it is good to read for example Acts 8.12-17 and see that there were people who already believed but not being baptised by Holy Spirit yet.

Nothing here says he is a believer in Christ, which is required for salvation. You cannot be a Christian without knowing Christ.

I wouldn’t be sure with this. Isn’t it work of Holy Spirit who prepares our hearts to recieve and to be opened for Christ?
How do you know he wasn’t seeking Truth with all his heart? Believers in Christ are all prophets in Old Testament even though they never saw Him (except John the Baptist, of course).

God bless you.

 

[chrpenka]

Etiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is a “finance secretary” of Etiopian Queen. This kingdom is seen in present Sudan. This land was held in the time of Church beginning as one of the End of the World.

So, his baptism surely means spreading Good News to the End of the World and recieving eunuchs to the Church.

Please, I’m sorry, instead of the End of the WorldI mean one of the far end of the world that was known that time.
20 min passed too fast for editing.