Yeah, and the Gospel is a story about one guy telling "I am" to another guy. By this logic there will be nothing left of the scripture, as most of it is parabolic. Why, do you think did the inspired Evangelist record it?
I didn't know you thought most of the Bible was parabolic. That would make much more expansive interpretations more possible. Is that the view of the Church, or is that something upon which good Catholics may disagree?
I thought this was recorded to show us that we all must teach and share the Gospel with others. Jesus did hundreds of things in the scripture to show us what He wanted us to do as well. But if Phillip was only acting as a Catholic hierarchy, then I suppose the jobs of teaching and sharing are only for them, under your interpretation.
I think that only the Church's interpretation of the scripture is valid, as she is the bride of Christ formed by Him for that express purpose (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-50; John 20:21, John 21:15-19), and guarded by Him from failure (Matthew 16:18). Got any scripture to the contrary?
Well, we disagree fundamentally on who God's Church is, so it would be pointless to try. Of course Jesus sent the Apostles, but I disagree that the Apostles were equivalent to today's Roman Catholic Church. I still can't explain why God would inspire His Holy work to be indecipherable to all but a few men who wield all the power. That is an impersonal God.
I believe it is true that the scripture has many facets. Very often they record a specific event, which can be taken as a simple narrative (for example, Jesus turned water into wine) but also it showed His divinity; it tells us that Mary intercedes for our needs; it relates to Christ as bridegroom of the Church; it prefigures the Eucharist where wine is transsubstantated into His blood; it tells us that the latter revelation of Christ is of greater importance than the earlier revelation of the Prophets.
In the eunuch story it is of course true that on its surface it is a mere anecdote from the life of Apostle Philip. But since the scripture mentions it among, we are sure, many other episodes from the Apostle's life, we have to believe that it has a deeper meaning and that it illustrates a general principle of transmission of knowledge from the apostles to the laity.
I disagree that the Apostles were equivalent to today's Roman Catholic Church.
Based on what? I gave you the scripture that says that they were sent by Christ; He promised us a Church and the final chapters of the Gospels and the Acts tell us how the Church was built. The pastoral letters tell us how that Church was steered away from error. For ten centuries there was but one Church run from Rome. Christ foresaw the schisms, but he also prays that in the end His Church will be one, and so it will be. When, do you think, the Catholic Church became distinct from the whatever "church" you have in mind?